1970-06-22

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 17 consideration in committee of Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):-Mr. Bechard in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. When the committee adjourned on Wednesday, June 17, 1970, it was considering subclause (3) of clause 14 as well as the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Matane. Before resuming the debate, could I point out that subclause (8) of clause 13 has been allowed to stand. The committee is now considering subclause (3) of clause 14, at page 24 of the bill. The motion presented by the hon. member for Matane is now before the House and reads as follows:
That subclause (3) of clause 14 be struck out.
On subclause (3) of clause 14-Certain British subjects deemed electors.
[English}


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it might be of some assistance to the committee if I tried to summarize the state of proceedings at the present time. By agreement we had a further discussion on Wednesday last when this particular clause was under consideration, and there were at least five proposals which were set before the committee at that time for consideration.
There was, of course, the first of the five proposals, the amendment actually before the committee, that is to say, the amendment by my colleague, the hon. member for Matane, which would remove altogether from British subjects other than Canadian citizens the right to vote in federal elections.
A second alternative was proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, which
22478-10}
would continue the voting arrangement as it exists under the Canada Elections Act in favour of British subjects for a further period of five years, during which period of time they could exercise the option of taking out Canadian citizenship, thereby becoming qualified as Canadian citizens, but the right to vote as British subjects would end at the end of the five-year period. There was a modification of that suggested by the hon. member for Ontario to change the term "British subjects" in the Act to "persons."
Then there was the proposal of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that the provision that exists in the Elections Act as it now reads, that is to say, any British subject who has been continuously resident in Canada for a period of one year, would continue in favour of British subjects but it would also be extended to citizens of France.
Finally, there was the proposal of the hon. member for York-Sunbury which, as I understand it, would continue the existing provisions in the Elections Act of special advantage to British subjects only who have been continuously resident in Canada for a period of 12 months. So we have a spectrum of choices. In addition, there was the recommendation by the committee which has been adopted in the draft bill, that is to say, that the right to vote would continue for any British subject who had that right in the last general federal election provided he remained continuously resident in Canada.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Chairman, I myself intended to move an amendment identical to the one proposed by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) on June 16, 1970. I find it a logical amendment because its adoption would make all citizens equal in Canada, whether they are called "Prud'homme", "Prudhomson", or "Prudhomski".
Moreover, I wish to say that I would reject the amendment if I detected any anti-British feelings in it.
To avoid repetitions, I make mine the comments the hon. member for Matane made last Tuesday when he introduced his amendment and in his brilliant speech of June 17.

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
I sincerely believe that all Canadian citizens must be treated as equals whatever their ethnic origin.
I would like to point out to the member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) of Prince Edward Island, my excellent friend and travelling companion, that the province of Prince Edward Island saw fit to revoke this privilege as early as 1954 and that the province of Quebec did so in 1945. What is good for two provinces should certainly be good for all Canada in 1970.
I do not share the views of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard): only one year's residence in Canada to have the right to vote does not seem enough to me. Incidentally, there is a bill in my name on today's order paper aimed at reducing to three years the time of residence for any immigrant wishing to become a Canadian citizen. The measure also provides that Canadian citizenship be compulsory for all immigrants.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
I recognize the need for granting British citizens, who have enjoyed some privileges up to now, some time to conform to these new rules, if the amendment from the hon. member for Matane is agreed to and put into effect before the next general election. Until then, on the occasion of a by-election, we should maintain the status quo, and in this way British subjects who are not yet Canadian citizens would still be able to exercise their franchise before they become Canadian citizens, because I presume that at least two years will elapse before the next general election is held. We will even suggest to the minister responsible for Canadian citizenship to accelerate and facilitate the process in order to help the many British subjects who have not yet deemed it appropriate to apply for Canadian citizenship.
Obviously, I cannot approve of the comments of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), our excellent friend, asking that the same privilege granted to British subjects be extended to citizens of French origin.
At this stage, I believe it is only fair to point out that we, of French origin, have never claimed special privileges, because we are one of the two founding races of Canada. Actually, during the debate on the Canadian flag, it had been suggested that a fleur-de-lis appear on that flag, in order to recall the past of citizens of French origin, which we could not accept. We have a country which is called
[Mr. Prud'homme.i
Canada, which is a distinct country and has no need for any symbol to link it with the past. We would rather live for the future.
I think therefore that we cannot agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris who, guided by a generous impulse, felt that citizens of French origin should be granted the same treatment enjoyed by British subjects.
I agree with my colleagues the members for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and Papineau (Messrs. Allmand and Ouellet), whose remarks have been discussed, that there would be enormous difficulties in carrying out the enumeration for the next general election.
The amendment moved by our colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman) also seems to be unacceptable as, to my mind, a principle has to be either accepted or rejected. It is not logical to say: Some changes are in order, but let us extend the privilege for one or two years longer. Either we accept the status quo, or in a reasonable way we decide to make the necessary changes at the present time and perhaps complete them later on when the minister responsible for citizenship introduces in the House his bill on Canadian citizenship. Then citizenship would be brought more in line with the wishes expressed here today. If the bill is adopted as drafted, it will create two kinds of British subjects. And let us try to visualize the resulting difficulties for enumerators who visit all homes and will have to ask the residents: "Where you a British subject, as your name is Wilson, or Stanfield, or any other? Were you a resident of Canada before June 25, 1968?" As some of my colleagues have pointed out, some who were not 21 years old at that time will have to abide by the new act, whereas those who were Canadian residents before June 25, 1968 will continue enjoying the same privilege.
One can readily imagine how frustrated, and angry all citizens of British origin will be when, upon being asked by enumerators whether they are British subjects, they have to reply that they were residents before June 25, 1968 but that their son was not.
It is frustrating for citizens not of British origin to be asked: Would you please produce your citizenship certificate if you want to be on the list, because your name is "Prudhom-meski", "Prudhommian" or of any other possible origin.
Mr. Chairman, I appeal to my colleagues, and I repeat, before concluding my remarks, that if I detected the slightest hint of anti-
June 22, 1970

British feeling in that amendment, I would be the first to reject it. But I suggest this is a positive amendment, a new step toward the goal contemplated by the former Prime Minister of Canada and every new member of Parliament, whatever his ethnic origin.
We want Canada to be for Canadians, with no distinction whatsoever between those belonging to the two founding races and those who left their countries to come here and live with us.
We should not create second-class citizens or privileged social classes in Canada, but we should rather try, as far as possible, to make every citizen equal and make them understand that, to be able to vote at the next general election, they will have to be Canadian citizens and be at least 18 years of age.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, I just came in and listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. gentleman who preceded me, whose eloquence and persuasiveness usually bring forth a favourable reaction from me. But this time I think he will allow me to disagree with the viewpoint he expressed. I think that Canadians as a whole will resist what has become apparent in the actions of this government, namely, in the face of difficult economic conditions the like of which we have not seen in this country-


Mr. Cafik:: Since you were in office.


John George Diefenbaker: -the government brings before Parliament matters such as this that can only divide the Canadian people further as a whole.
The hon. member referred to second-class citizenship, against which I have always stood throughout the years and still stand. But it has become apparent week after week and month after month that this government is determined to remove any vestige of our British tradition in this country, indeed, to a degree that would have been shocking to French-Canadians such as Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier and the Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe, whose speeches can be read not only with interest today but with value.
I say to the government, is it not about time that you put a stop to the accelerating rate by which our British tradition is being swept aside in this country? So far as those of the French race are concerned, I do not want to point out again but sometimes it has to be
Canada Elections Act
repeated that in my own province in 1922, when it was unpopular to do so, believing that the French language had its place in the schools of Saskatchewan constitutionally because of its existence in the territorial days, I acted for two French-Canadian trustees on an appeal. They were prosecuted and convicted for permitting the use of the French language in a school to a degree that was not considered appropriate under the education act. I took the appeal. I was widely criticized for having done so, but I was successful on that appeal, and any hon. member that wants to look up the record of almost 50 years ago will find that in the case Boutin and Ethier I took that stand and have consistently followed it through the years.
When I was Prime Minister I realized that French Canada was not receiving its fair share of appointments to the senior ranks in the civil service or in external affairs. One of the first directions given was that there should be a realization that those of French origin were not receiving their fair share of top level appointments, and action was taken accordingly. Furthermore, to make Parliament bilingual, as it was under the BNA Act, we brought in the provision whereby simultaneous interpretation was adopted. These things had not taken place under Liberal administrations. We also made other changes in order to ensure that French-Canadians should not be in a secondary position with regard to citizenship.
I know the meaning of second-class Canadi-anism, and if you read my speeches through the years when I was in opposition you will find that I brought before Parliament over and over again the need for action to be taken to ensure that those were proud of having "Canada" on their shoulder straps in the days of war would not immediately become separated into various racial origins on their return. Back in August of 1944 I dealt with this matter at length during the course of a debate in the House, and the Right Hon. Mackenzie King who was Prime Minister said that when the war was over he would join the hon. member for Lake Centre, as I then was, and others of like mind to bring about these changes so that we would build a true Canadianism.
I say to the government: Remove this amendment now; do not continue a course that is becoming clearer day by day.
I do not want to speak at length-I have no notes before me-but I speak from the heart when I say that under this administration and

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
its predecessor a determined effort has been made to obliterate our traditions. Englishspeaking Canada has the right to speak out on matters such as this and to ask this government to bring an end to the trend.
Think of what has happened in recent years. I have before me a record which has just been sent to me demonstrating actions to degrade the Crown. The Queen is the head of the executive branch of government. She is an integral part of Parliament, but she has been placed in a completely inferior position by this government as of July 1 last in that in the directions sent out to the various departments of government in what might be called the catalogue of public relations a change was made in effect making the cabinet the executive head. Of the Speeches from the Throne that have been brought before Parliament recently, all that remains is the fact that the throne still appears in the description of the speech that is given. The degree to which Her Majesty has been placed in an inferior position is apparent from the fact that she was not mentioned in a recent Speech from the Throne and in the one made in 1969 written by the Prime Minister and spoken by the Governor General in which the following statement appeared:
May I say, too, that Her Majesty's interest in Canada and in Canadians and their affairs will bring the Queen-[DOT]
To Canada. Her interest in Canadian affairs! Parliament cannot exist without the Queen being a necessary element in Parliament. Indeed, in the same book to which I referred, which deals with the organization of the government of Canada, other, similar changes have been made.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
Why is there this pell-mell rush to obliterate one part of our tradition? People are asking themselves why, and why there is not more opposition to it in Parliament. Governments, being human, are always prone to advance those things they believe in even though they are based on uncertain principles, where there is no direct opposition. Another example in the unification of the armed forces might be cited, which was brought about for one purpose only, to remove what were regarded as British uniforms. And what has happened to the armed forces today? By reason of the tinkering of this government, nowhere in the world is there a greater degree of uncertainty, accompanied with loss of morale, than in our armed forces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: It is all part of the picture. The removal of the Queen's portrait from the citizenship courts is another example. We have ministers of the government occupying the highest positions who have advocated the establishment of a republic in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There is one who is able to speak out by simply tapping his desk and not identifying himself.


Mr. De Bane:: A question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak later.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He is rising on a question of privilege.


Pierre De Bané: Is the right hon. member aware that his colleague the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) is also in favour of the republic and the abolition of the monarchy?


Albert Béchard: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege.

This is not a question of privilege, but a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member simply rose to speak under the guise of rising on a question of privilege. May I proceed? Three members of the government have advocated a republic for Canada. Apparently they are steering the course of Canada today in that direction.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Again, one solitary person is pounding his desk. Sir, a further example is the recent removal of the coat of arms from certain ministerial stationery. Was this as result of a decision of the government? The coat of arms has been on ministerial stationery throughout the years, and now it is removed in some departments. In place of the coat of arms on the stationery of two government departments is a monogram with the letters "CL", which stands for "Department
June 22, 1970

of Labour". A horizontal bar on the top of the "L" forms the facsimile of the letter "T", for "travail". I am unable to determine what is implied by the design of the "C" therein. It looks to me as if there are three heads thereon. Perhaps it is a heraldic interpretation of the troika. But this kind of action should not be taken by ministers unless there has first been approval by the cabinet and after discussion by Parliament. These things happen again and again. They are dividing our country unnecessarily.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Such changes are driving people to the belief that we cannot establish unity in Canada. Unity is not a one-way street. We who are of a racial origin other than French have gone a long way to bring about unity in Canada. We have given up some of those things that we regarded as sacred to our citizenship-and I speak as one of mixed origin.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege.

I should like to point out to my right hon. friend, and this is a question of privilege, that if I were sure that what I am doing this morning is dividing this country I would refuse to associate myself with such an amendment. I am trying to work in this country and this House to unite people and not disunite them. I repeat again to my right hon. friend, if I were sure that this kind of amendment would divide the people of this country I would refuse to associate myself with it. I think he knows that quite well, because I have spoken to him quite often privately. I do not agree with him when he asserts that in trying to build a better Canada for today and tomorrow we are forgetting our past. We have a great deal of respect for the Canada of yesterday and we believe in traditions in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I always respect the
integrity of the hon. gentleman. He says that if he were sure the amendment would divide Canada he would not support it. He ought to go farther than that and say that if there is any doubt about it he will not support it, on the basis of his beliefs throughout the years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Canada Elections Act


John George Diefenbaker: How is it possible to establish certainty? Socrates tried; other philosophers ever since have tried and have found it impossible. I am placing my views before this chamber in a dispassionate way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: That is the Liberal attitude. They say, "Oh, oh." They alone have custody of sincerity. They alone are trying to build this country. It is apparent from their interruptions that they think that those who do not agree with the course being taken are not entitled to be heard.
Sir, I mentioned removal of the coat of arms; on the substitution there are three little images that might possibly represent a troika. Who knows whether they might not be the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion? I do not know, but I think there ought to be identification. It is only fair that those who have come into the government from other parties and who have been raised to dominant positions in the government party should make it clear whether the next step is the creation of a new order, a new triumvirate, in this country.
Speaking seriously, I hope that the government will not press forward with such actions. I cannot be optimistic about it because it is apparent that, notwithstanding the doubts of those who believe in a united Canada, these people will push through what they want regardless of the divisions that are being caused.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert rose to speak he acknowledged that he had not been present at prior proceedings.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say that at all. I said I did not know what was coming up today.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was trying to assist the right hon. gentleman. If he had followed this debate he would know very well that this amendment was not brought forward by the government and that I specifically said that the government took no position on it. The position which the government has taken is the position taken in the bill and the position taken by the standing committee, I believe unanimously. Certainly the hon. member for Hillsborough supported the idea that a change of the kind set out on page 24 of the bill should be made. In fact, I refer the

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
right hon. member to the statement of the hon, member for Hillsborough at page 8255 of Hansard.
a (11.40 a.m.)
I think there was a general disposition within the standing committee that the position which had previously existed, not so much discriminating in favour of British subjects but discriminating against those Canadian immigrants of origins other than the United Kingdom, should not persist. The stand taken generally by the standing committee at that time was that the position should be that any British subject other than a Canadian citizen who had been entitled to vote in the last election should not have that right taken away but that in future British subjects who have immigrated to Canada, as well as other immigrants such as Italians, Ukrainians and Poles, should be on an equal basis. Once they have taken out Canadian citizenship they should have the right to vote, but not before. That is the position of the government with regard to this bill. In fairness it should be put on the record that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Matane, which is his right, is the initiative of the hon. member. It does not in any sense represent the view of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: I fully realize what the hon. member has said. However, whatever the amendment may be, the stand taken by the government on this and many other matters to which reference was made is not apologized for or defended by the minister. He could not deny the fact that this government is determined to push its way through to bring about a republic in Canada. I have nothing to withdraw in that connection. That has been the attitude of some ministers of the government. They have stated they are in favour of such action. One of them voted for the Liberal Party abolition motion. The Prime Minister of Canada said he did not vote for the abolition of the monarchy because he did not think it was a matter of sufficient importance. Indeed, he regards the question as even less important than skiing or even snow-shoeing.


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take only a few moments of the committee's time to raise a problem. I wish to point it to the particular attention of the hon. member for Saint-Denis. It concerns the latest passport and citizenship regulations. I do not think this matter has been brought to the attention of the House. While it involves directly only the

amendment before us, it also relates to other amendments. It is of such concern that even several members of this House are not, according to these latest regulations, Canadian citizens. I do not think the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek will mind if I mention his name, but he is one of these. I do not know where this puts the hon. member and others in similar circumstances in so far as their right to sit in the House is concerned. The fact is that under the present statutes and the current passport regulations a person born in Great Britain, no matter whether he has lived here for 40 or 50 years, served in the armed forces or held public office, is not a Canadian citizen. I mention the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek because that is the position he is in, having been born in Scotland. I can see this happening with the amendment now before us as it relates to a British subject, living in this country at the last election, having the right to vote in any future election.
Last Saturday I received a telephone call from a man in my constituency who is well into his seventies. He was literally weeping over the telephone. He had received an urgent call and wanted to return to Great Britain for a visit. He came to this country prior to World War I. In fact I think it was in 1907. He served in World War I in the Canadian army. He is now being denied the right to receive a Canadian passport until he becomes a Canadian citizen.


Mr. Deachman:: Wrong.


Robert Norman Thompson: I challenge that.


Grant Deachman: You have your facts all wrong.


Robert Norman Thompson: He cannot receive a passport except on a temporary one year basis. Even though he has had ten passports in the past, he must now verify his personal record and take out a Canadian citizenship certificate before he can receive a current passport. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra should verify what he is saying because it is not true.
Even though a British subject has lived in this country 60 years, has assumed the rights of a Canadian citizen, has had passports in the past and has served in the armed forces, until he takes out a citizenship certificate, which I admit is not a very difficult process, he is denied a passport. The member for Vancouver Quadra is in error when he denies that. This did not only happen last Saturday
June 22, 1970

838S
but has happened at least 50 times in the past few months. I have been able to assist these people to get their certificates, but that does not lessen the injustice.


Grant Deachman: May I ask the hon. member a question? Do the passport regulations not now require proof of citizenship which, if you were a British subject and acquired citizenship by virtue of your British citizenship under the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, simply means that you must produce your Canadian citizenship certificate or, if you were born in Canada, simply produce your birth certificate? Is there not a difference between simply producing a certificate to indicate your Canadian citizenship and taking out citizenship, as the hon. member suggests?


Robert Norman Thompson: There is practically no difference. To answer your question-


Grant Deachman: Just a minute. Practically-


Robert Norman Thompson: Let me answer. A person born in Canada is one thing. If he has his birth certificate or other proof of his Canadian birth he is automatically a Canadian citizen. That is true. However, a British subject who has been in this country for X number of years is not entitled to a passport until he can provide proof of Canadian citizenship which he can only acquire by taking out a citizenship certificate.


Mr. McGrath:: That is a fact and the hon. member knows it.


Robert Norman Thompson: This situation arises day after day in the passport office. It is necessary to have a special staff to deal with the situation. This is a travesty of justice. It does not make for the just society that some hon. members opposite like to talk about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: To return to the hon. member's question-


George Albert Proud: May I ask a simple question? These are very difficult problems but I think we can talk about them in a reasonable way. With all due respect to hon. members, is it not a fact that the majority of the Canadian people find it reasonable that you have to be a Canadian citizen? I accept the fact that up until now it has been possible, but is it not reasonable that you must be a Canadian citizen to sit in the Canadian House of Commons? Is it not reasonable that you should be
Canada Elections Act
a Canadian citizen to have a Canadian passport? There should be no discussion. It is a fact. Is that not reasonable?


Robert Norman Thompson: 
Mr. McIntosh:: If I might add briefly to what my hon. friend has just said, the objection I take to the present procedure with regard to passports is easily explained. The hon. member for Saint-Denis said he thought we should be reasonable, that we would like to be Canadians. Well, most of us thought we were Canadians by virtue of previous acts. But the government, in its wisdom, regardless of whether or not a man has sat in this House and served over one-third of his life in the public service, now .says: If you want a passport you must provide proof of citizenship.
I would have thought that since I spent six years in the armed services the department would have proof that I was a Canadian, or that I wore Canadian badges in the war. I wonder what would happen to me if I were travelling in Europe, after fighting for six years for what I thought was my country, and then found I could not get back into Canada.


Mr. Osier:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I respect the hon. member's feelings but I think his argument is fallacious. I was in the Air Force where I was surrounded by Americans who thought enough of the cause to join that service. They had no inten-

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
tion of becoming Canadians, but they served beside us for a long time and then went back to the United States. Surely the fact that a peron served in the Canadian Forces could in no way be an indication of Canadian citizenship.


John (Jack) McIntosh: No one asked me to join the armed services. I did so of my own accord and for my own reasons. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the armed forces or not, but I felt it was my place to be there and I am proud to have served in the Canadian Army. I think I did my job. I thought I was a Canadian.


Edmund Boyd Osler: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I think I should make this perfectly clear. I served in the Canadian Air Force for four and a half years.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A gentleman of the air force. We were men of the army. My point is this. I was quite prepared to answer the communication I received from the new minister of information. The letter he sent to each member asked us to provide certain information. I sent in my application but it was returned to me-they would not take my word that I was a Canadian citizen. The application had to be signed by a notary public, or someone like that. I have not done so.


Mr. Baldwin:: They take your taxes, though.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Oh yes, they take my taxes every month. My right hon. friend from Prince Albert has voiced an objection which many Canadians feel. I conclude by saying that if there is any doubt whether amendments of this kind tend to divide Canada, I can assure the hon. member for Saint-Denis that this is indeed the case. I, at any rate, am deeply resentful of this type of legislation.


Mr. Coates:: My remarks will be few, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Saint-Denis suggested that if, in his opinion, the amendment would cause ill feeling or disunity in the nation he would not support it. I put it to him that the example which has been brought forward today by my hon. friend for Swift Current-Maple Creek emphasizes the difficulties which are being created and illustrates the effect on the country of the type of proposal contained in the amendment. If this is happening, and if a man who has served his country and who has been a Member of Parliament for many Parliaments, finds it inexplicable, if it has happened to him and he

feels resentment, if he feels hurt to think that at this late stage he is not regarded as a Canadian citizen in every sense of the word, then there must be tens of thousands who feel themselves similarly offended. I am sure no one in this country would take the view that he is not a Canadian citizen. Regardless of what the law may say, I am sure everybody in Canada is proud of the fact that he is a Canadian and a Member of Parliament. He has been a contributing Canadian as far as I am concerned, and no law is going to change that situation.
As I say, there are many hundreds of thousands of people in this country who find themselves in the same position as my hon. friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek. And do you know what they say, Mr. Chairman, when they read about a debate of this kind? If they are British, they say: Then I am a second-class citizen in this country and have been ever since the Pearson government took office in 1963. This is what concerns me. This type of legislation will drive the people of Canada apart. This type of amendment is a classic example of the way we shall destroy ourselves if we keep going on the same lines.
Let us stop this foolishness before it is too late, if it is not already too late, and let us recognize the things which have always attracted people to this country, regardless of their place of origin. Let us say to the English, to the Scots, to the Welsh and to the Irish, and to the people of the Commonwealth: We are still part of the same family and we shall always give you the same rights; you are a special part of us because of the contribution you made to the development of our country in 1867 and before that time. Let us not try to downgrade and remove and sneak away by stealth the things these people hold dear in the hope that doing so will upgrade the position of somebody else in this country. Nothing is accomplished by running somebody down. If it is felt we should help Canadians who live in the province of Quebec-and, like my right hon. friend from Prince Albert, I have no objection to that whatsoever-let us not attempt to do so by taking things away from someone else. Rather, let us give them something in addition to what they have already, should it be felt this would assist them to play a greater part in the building of this country. Let us have no part of amendments like the one before us which only take away, only destroy, only help to cause further disunity.
June 22, 1970

I believe that the hon. member for Saint-Denis is a fair-minded man who means what he says. I say to him: think it over. I urge him to withdraw his support for this amendment and, in doing so, to recognize that the proposal does, indeed, contain a further threat to unity and, second, that in his view every Canadian should feel equal.
[DOT] (12 noon)


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, I again rise on a question of privilege. May I say in answer to my hon. friend that I have held my view for many years, which perhaps is one reason I am sitting here in Ottawa rather than Quebec City. My question of privilege is that I believe Italians, Germans and Ukrani-ans are also a special part of us in Canada.
May I also say that I refuse the generosity of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who suggested we include as a special category immigrants of French-speaking origin. I refuse this generosity because to me every Canadian, whatever his country of origin, is a special part of us in Canada. No longer is he a German, Scandinavian, Greek, Armenian, Arab, or whatever the case may be.
I repeat that I see nothing wrong with the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek taking out his citizenship, but am I downgrading him? Up until now he has been able to take his seat in this House. However, the decision is for him, not for us. My contention is that everyone in Canada is equal in the matter of citizenship. The only difference between Canada and most other countries in the world is that we have two official languages. Certainly there is no special privilege granted to English or French, or should not be.
If there are to be privileged groups in Canada, then perhaps they should be the Eskimos and Indians rather than the two founding races. I am getting tired of hearing this expression used by hon. members opposite. I have said hundreds of times when I have been in western Canada, and I repeat it again today, that I sometimes wish my name was Prudomski so that I could make people understand better. But because my name is Prud'homme it sounds as though a special ease is being made for French-speaking people in Quebec. There is no such thought in my mind, and there never has been and I hope never will be. As far as I am concerned, everyone in Canada, regardless of racial *origin, should be treated equally.
Canada Elections Act
As honourable men, I say immigrants should take out Canadian citizenship if they want to vote in general elections. To be eligible to vote in Canada you must be 18 years of age or over and a Canadian citizen. This situation is an honourable one and is far from being divisive.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, may I answer this so-called question of privilege in this way. First of all, the hon. member for Saint-Denis said he did not think what he was proposing was divisive, but if it were shown that it was, or if he thought it was, he would not agree with the proposition. I have endeavoured to show him it is, but he has ignored my comments and made some other proposition. I said that the proposition now put forward is divisive, and I have no doubt about that. If there is any doubt in the hon. members' mind, then he too should recognize it and oppose that proposition.
The second point I want to make relates to a quotation from Abraham Lincoln, who once said that you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. I think that is a pretty important consideration.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, I must admit 1 am puzzled by the turn taken by this debate. I suppose that since this country was founded there has been a special type of arrangement made for those who come from the British Commonwealth countries; that is to say, almost immediately on their arrival in Canada they are entitled to all the privileges, including the right to vote. I do not want to be critical about that; this is part of our history.
As I understood what the right hon. member for Prince Albert and others had to say, they wanted this situation to continue, though some did not want the right extended to people who come to Canada from Frenchspeaking countries. I come from a constituency where people of all ethnic groups, with the possible exception of people of French origin, have settled in large numbers. I represent over 20,000 people of Ukrainian origin, 12,000 people of Polish origin and large numbers of Czechs, Russians and Jews.
As I have understood the reasoning of the right hon. member for Prince Albert over the last couple of years, he has been arguing that all people in Canada should be treated equally. I agree with this proposition and should like to see it applied to our election laws. I am not too concerned whether we say that those who come to Canada must wait five

June 22, 1370
Canada Elections Act
years before being eligible to vote, or whether we say that people who come to Canada are eligible after only one year; I am content with either proposition. I contend that all people in Canada should be treated equally, be they of British, French or any other origin.
In recent years the pattern of immigration to Canada has changed. Large numbers are coming to cities like Montreal, Toronto and other cities in Ontario from countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece. In the recent past substantial numbers have come to Canada from the Asian countries. I ask whether there is any member of this House who would say to these people: "You are second or third-class citizens. Certain people who come to this country can vote in elections after a stay of one year, whereas you have to wait five years or more"? I hope no one in this House would suggest that. If that is the case, no one should propose that some people should have to wait five years for the vote whereas other people need wait only one year.
I close by saying I am prepared to vote for any motion made by any member of the House that treats all people equally when it comes to voting at election time. I do not care whether these people are white, yellow, red, black or brown, whether they are British, French, Scandinavian, Greek or Dutch. Equally, I am prepared to vote against any proposal giving special status and rights to a particular group.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to make one comment on the remarks made by our colleague from Saint-Denis and to ask one specific question on the amendment before the committee. I speak not as a member of one of the two founding races; I belong to neither, though my name might give the impression that I do. I was not even born in Canada. Nevertheless, I am proud to call myself and to be a Canadian.
e (12:10 p.m.)
However, the point I want to answer in a very reasonable way, in relation to the suggestion that we are being unfair as far as the past is concerned, is that by this amendment a group of Canadians are being told that according to the law as it stands now and has been in the past, they are not Canadian citizens. I do not agree with the statement of the hon. member for Saint-Denis that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek can take out citizenship if he wants to, because he should not have to.

Therefore I think this amendment is wrong because I believe everyone who has been in the country under the regulations and the laws that have existed in the past should have these full rights that are due him. There ought to be some better way of making sure that all Canadians up to this point should be what the law has said they have been and what they thought they were. I think that is a reasonable answer.
This amendment is inadequate from this standpoint because I think everyone at this time who has been here and is technically and legally a Canadian citizen in the sense that he belongs to Canada should continue to have those rights which he has exercised in the past. He should not have to take action such as many Canadians are now having to do. This amendment is inadequate because it does not really fill the need. I am not talking about the broader principle of the bill. On that basis I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken, that a'll Canadians are equal and we must regard them as such. This is another point relating to the new legislation as far as the future is concerned but which does not really relate to the discussion on this particular amendment.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time we have been in the committee in the morning and perhaps that is the reason the debate is a bit more stimulating and aggressive than it has been on previous afternoons. I do not want to repeat what I said last week. I do think that this is the one amendment of the five which would actually be hurtful to our whole cause. I think it should be opposed because it does that which I think is not good, it diminishes the electorate and would have the effect of lowering the number of people who would participate in the franchise.
I am very much impressed by the fact that the new nations of the Caribbean Commonwealth as they set up their new countries were generous and considerate enough to reciprocate to Canadians there the rights people from the British West Indies resident in Canada obtain under the British subject provision. I do not want to be a party to deleting from the electoral rolls of Canada the very fine people from the Caribbean Commonwealth who are making their homes with us at the present time.
I am not in favour of anything which narrows the franchise. Our role should be to broaden it. As I said the other day, I hope we
June 22, 1970

might hold on long enough to this reciprocal aspect of the British subject in one country and another so we might be able to explore the possibility of extending it throughout the Commonwealth. It is in six or eight countries now, and I think this might be worth while.
I was impressed by Mr. Stewart MacLeod's Canadian Press article about the Prime Minister's new concern with the Commonwealth. This might be an avenue whereby we could foster a healthier sense of internationalism within the Commonwealth. I do not like this suggestion that people are espousing about second-class citizenship and third-class citizenship. They are saying that one group of people is better than another. I think this is unworthy.
The problem of the British subject provision is not that anyone thinks he is better and therefore entitled to something but rather that by law they were given a certain status. As I mentioned the other day, it is only recently that there was such an animal as a Canadian citizen. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not a Canadian citizen, he was a British subject. Robert Borden was not a Canadian citizen but surely no one would be foolish enough to say that Robert Borden was not a Canadian. If fact, he was the architect of our independence. So it was 70 years before we set up a vehicle whereby people became Canadian citizens. One would find, I think if he looked over the roll of British subjects, that a lot of them do not bear the names such as Thompson, Forrestall, Macquarrie or MacRae. They get the franchise because at one time there were only British subjects.
I do not think there is any reason a country must freeze forever rights which were granted in the past. I would not hold to that opinion. Therefore I believe what the bill purports or suggests is in fact a better solution. What the hon. member for Matane would have us do in fact would be to retroactively divest people of rights which were given them by this country, rights which they had the right to believe would be extended to them. I do not like the idea of reaching back and taking from people a right which they have assumed was given them in good faith.
I am sure that the bill and the committee deal with this in a much less drastic and hurtful way than does the amendment of the hon. member for Matane. It would be regrettable if we should say today that this right is gone and there is no chance of these people recovering that right which they once had.
Canada Elections Act
I heard a very fine speech the other day by the hon. member for Kamloops when he spoke about his people. He spoke about the length of time it took before they were extended the franchise. We know that in Canada today there is great soul-searching about the rights of his people. While I do not preiend to be an expert on all the ramifications, it seems to me that one of the elements which constantly comes through is the fact that many of the Indian people believe that a word given them has not been honoured. I would not want to be a party to dishonouring a word which had been given to any group of people in this country.
So I would say, let us find a reasonable way of dealing with this situation. Let us not abruptly disenfranchise people in this rather cruel and heartless way, because you do not really trot out your Canadianism with this particular device. Surely none of us is sticking out his chest and proving his Canadianism by taking from a group of those among us rights which were properly given them.
I must apologize to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres because apparently I created a source of amusement for him the other day through a misunderstanding. He said he was amused when I told the House about the wisdom of our forefathers. Actually the English expression "in their wisdom" is a figure of speech which quite often indicates that the person using that figure of speech does not think so much of the wisdom of these people.
The hon. member also went on to say that many young people today do not really believe that the older people are that wise. I tell him that young people in every age and of every generation have expressed the same point of view. I would not for one moment suggest that our ancestors in this place were any wiser than we are and, God help us, they were not any more foolish than we are. We are living in an age when we can get to the moon but cannot get to the heart of many of our cities. We can manufacture the finest instruments but we cannot seem to depollute our atmosphere. I am not sure that all wisdom resides either in the past or in the present. I am not invoking the wisdom of people in the past; I am invoking a fact of life. Our election laws were geared in this way and we are now dealing with what one might call the ethical and moral fallout of decisions which were made previously. I think we must deal justly with the people involved.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of my hon. friend? I should like to

June 22. 1970
Canada Elections Act
know where he was, what he did and what he said in 1954 in his province when the provincial government took this right away from British citizens who were not Canadians and who have not had the right to vote in provincial elections since. As the hon. member knows, in his province this right has not existed since 1964. What action did the people take then and what was their feeling? Was the feeling divisive?
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I say, since the hon. member asked me, that there was a little misunderstanding when the election was called, but with their usual wisdom the people of Prince Edward Island handled it quite well.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I would like to say a few words on this subject. The general intention of Bill C-215 is to allow British subjects who have voted in previous federal elections to vote in the future. I have just been considering whether this provision in fact includes people of Irish descent. Under the previous Act those of Irish descent were considered to be in the same classification as British subjects, and I think it is quite clear that those from Southern Ireland are not so considered in Bill C-215. It may well be debatable whether the term "British subject" in fact covers those that the draftsman of the bill had in mind.
I should like to suggest later, as I did before in the House, that we clarify not only that point but other points. If the clause stands, I will propose the striking out the words "British subject" and replacing them by the word "person". The net effect is almost the same because those who were not citizens and who were eligible to vote in the last federal election were in fact either British subjects or, I suggest, citizens of Southern Ireland.
Speaking on the amendment of the hon. member for Matane I should like to review for a moment, if I may, what a Canadian citizen is and what the effect of the proposed amendment would be. First of all, I understand that a Canadian citizen is one who has taken out his Canadian citizenship papers. This can be done by one who has been in Canada for five years and who has made the proper application, if he is not a British subject, or, if he is a British subject he is given the special privilege of taking out Canadian citizenship after one year. In addition to going through these formalities, one has to pay a $10 fee.

The fee itself is not very significant for most people but I suggest that it may well be significant for many people who are retired. We all know the pressures that have been put on them, because of inflation. I suggest that perhaps it is not appropriate to ask them to pay the $10 fee particularly if they have lived in this country for 40 or 50 years, in order to take out citizenship in a country of which most of them really believe they are citizens now.
In addition, anyone who is born in Canada is a Canadian citizen, and so is a British subject under certain circumstances stemming from the passing of the Citizenship Act of 1947. That Act outlined that those then living in Canada who were landed immigrants for a period of five years prior to the passing of the Act were automatically considered to be Canadian citizens, and those who were not landed immigrants but who were British subjects and who had been in this country for a period of 20 years prior to the passing of the act were deemed to be Canadian citizens.
The implications of these two provisions of the Act of 1947 are quite significant to this debate. Let us look at the practical implications of the amendment before us, which in effect says that only those who have taken out Canadian citizenship or who were born in this country and thereby are Canadian citizens or who are Canadian citizens under the act of 1947 will be allowed to vote. The proposition in Bill C-215 allows those who could vote in the past to still vote in the future.
Let us find out who in fact would be disenfranchised if this amendment were to be passed. I am not prejudging the situation one way or the other, at the moment; I would just like to review the facts.
First of all, under this amendment landed immigrants who came to this country since 1942, unless they went through the formality of becoming Canadian citizens, would in fact be disenfranchised even though many would have lived here for a period of 26 years. This means that a person who has lived here for 26 years and cast a ballot in every federal election since that time would wake up one morning after this amendment is passed and all of a sudden, or perhaps more unfortunately just prior to the next federal election, find out he is no longer entitled to vote. Psychologically this is a very bad thing to do to such a person but, more important, consider the person who was not a landed immigrant in Canada but who is a British subject. He could
June 22, 1970

have had a period of up to 46 years in which he cast a ballot in every consecutive federal election. Under this amendment he would be disenfranchised without ever having the opportunity of voting again unless he does something different from what he has done in the past, namely, take out Canadian citizen-stip. These two groups will be disenfranchised. I presume, that we also disenfranchise people from Southern Ireland who could vote in the past, because they are not included in the act or in the amendments.
I understand that the categories I am speaking about represent about 1,500,000 people in Canada who could have voted or did vote in the last federal election and who will not be allowed to vote in the next federal election unless they take out Canadian citizenship. It can well be argued that they should in fact take out Canadian citizenship, that this is a highly desirable thing. I agree and I would encourage every non-citizen, whether he is a British subject or of other origin, to do so. I do not think anyone can argue about that. I have no particular axe to grind for British subjects. I myself am of different ethnic origin. I am Ukrainian and I am proud of it, just as proud as anyone would be of their national origin. I think that would indicate I have no vested interest in this matter.
However, I believe it is a serious matter to say to people who have grown accustomed to a certain kind of rule, who have grown accustomed to casting a vote, that we are changing the law retroactively, as it were, and that they are no longer entitled to vote. I should like to ask those who think as highly as I do of Canadian citizenship-and there is no one in this chamber who values it more highly- what is the hurry? Surely we do not want a special class of citizens in this country. Surely we want to pass an Act under which everyone who comes to this country from abroad will be treated equally. However, is it necessary to say that those who have come to Canada under certain rules and who have grown accustomed to exercising a certain privilege will be denied the right to vote because we are impatient to make them toe the line, which I am not too sure in their case is that significant?
I beg of you to consider that problem. I do not think it is a simple or unimportant thing to take away one of man's most valuable possessions in a free society, the right of casting a ballot to determine the direction in which the country will go. It is not that
Canada Elections Act
simple to say to a man that he could vote yesterday but tomorrow he cannot do so. That does not seem to me to be fair.
It is true that we want Canadian unity, and I can see that giving special privileges to any class of people has a tendency to destroy national unity because other ethnic groups as well as the French, our other founding race, feel that a special privilege has been given to a certain class of people. Let us do away with that special privilege, but let us not back up. Why do we have to insult all these people? Is it necessary that we do it? I suggest that it serves no useful purpose in connection with Canadian unity.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I can think of a practical example of the emotional effect upon people. My mother, who is dead now, God rest her soul, died the day after the last general election. She was over 70 years old. She was of Scottish descent. She came to this country in the early 1900's. She had two husbands, the first of whom died in the First World War, and the second of whom fought and died as a result of the Second World War. Is it right that we should say to people like her that they can no longer vote in this country that they love, the country they have worked for and of which they are proud? I do not think it is fair or necessary to do that. All such persons should be encouraged to take out citizenship, but I see no need to force them to do so in order to exercise a right they have always had the privilege of exercising.
So far as I am concerned the bill is a little inadequate. I pointed that out in my opening remarks. I believe that the amendment that is put forward is even more inadequate. I did not believe so previously, but I did a lot of thinking about it over the weekend and I now feel we are in too much of a hurry. I do not make accusations but it will appear to many people that we are not only anxious to say that they are not special citizens but that we want to step on them in some way and say that they cannot do what they did previously. I do not see any useful purpose in that.
I can understand why people have divergent views on an issue such as this. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it was almost a toss of a coin with respect to which side I was going to come down on, whether in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane or in favour of the original bill. But I have thought about the matter and I do not think I have come down on a side that is

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
going to create preferential citizenship. Quite the contrary, this will see to it that in the future preferential citizenship ends. That is what I suggest we do. I do not think it is an unreasonable proposition.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to make any remarks during these proceedings, but having heard a great many of the observations made this morning I would like to say this is one of the few genuine debates I have heard this session, an extemporary debate of the type that is supposed to take place in the House of Commons. If nothing else we are perhaps finishing off the session on a good note.
Most of my remarks have been adequately expressed by the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Hillsborough, and I do not wish to take up the time of the committee with repetition. But there are one or two other points which should be brought to the attention of some hon. members for their consideration.
Even since I became a member of the House of Commons I have always supported legislation designed to bring closer together the people of French-speaking origin and those of English speaking origin, and I will continue to do so. But as was pointed out by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, trying to bring about unity in Canada is not always just a one-way street. It is not always what you do that counts. It is what you may appear to be doing that can be even more important. Like Caesar's wife, you must not only be pure but must appear to be pure.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, a certain impression has been created which was alluded to by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. It exists in parts of Canada, presumably in western Canada, perhaps in the Atlantic provinces, and I can tell you that most certainly it exists in large areas of Ontario. It is that an effort is being made by the present government to do a certain thing. This may not be true, it may not be the intention; I hope it is not. I certainly would not attribute such motives to the hon. member for Saint-Denis for whose sincerity I have a great deal of respect. But it is not a question of what one is doing; it is the impression that is being created.
I get around quite a bit, and during the last four or five years I have heard from all age groups and all classes of society remarks to the effect that the present government and its immediate predecessor have been doing everything they can to remove traditions of
[Mr. Cafik.l
an Anglo-Saxon nature. I am sorry to have to say this, but some of the members on the government side, and some members to my left do not appear to know it. There is a feeling in English-speaking Canada that there are attempts being made to destroy traditions of an Anglo-Saxon nature but none to destroy those of a French-Canadian character.
This is not a good thing for the imity of our country. I am not suggesting that this is what is being done or what is intended, but that is the appearance that is being created in English-speaking Canada. Make no mistake about that, Mr. Chairman, and I hope some of my friends from Quebec will not make a mistake about it in the future. I am sorry to have to say this, but as we are talking about national unity I must say we are not going to achieve it by proceeding to step on one of the major ethnic groups, one of the major cultural groups, in this country. This is keenly resented.
I have no apology to make for making these remarks. I have supported every measure that has been presented by successive governments to bring about greater unity in this country. But I would point out, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester North, the right hon. member for Prince Albert and others, that you do not create national unity by giving the impression-I do not say it is the intention-of deliberately trying to remove some of the background and traditions of those who make up a very large segment of the country. You do not help things by doing that, and certainly that is the appearance that is given.
I would hope that those in authority will give very careful consideration to this. It is often the appearance of things that causes uneasiness and ill will. After all, the cabinet is certainly dominated by members from the province if Quebec. The right hon. Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, whether they deserve the accolade or not, are generally regarded as running the government, and when one sees one action after another, and this is just one more link in the chain, it does not do anything to achieve unity.
I would hope that hon. members on both sides of the House, but particularly on the government side, listened with great care to what has just been said by my very good friend, albeit he is a member of the government party, from Ontario. He expressed views which are very much in the minds of those of us from that part of the country.
June 22, 1970

[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the amendment brought in by the hon. member tor Matane (Mr. De Bane) in order to say that we support it because it is logical.
Various views are expressed in the House, especially by Anglo-Saxon members who are indulging in sentimentality and this is blameful.
In my opinion this amendment has but one purpose: to give justice to all Canadian citizens. In fact, I think that in reading today's Hansard the population will understand why we have so much difficulty in creating unity in Canada. I think that there lies the harm developed through the years by such discriminatory action.
Mr. Chairman, I love Canada and I think that the first intelligent move to be made by every citizen who earns a living in Canada and really loves his country should be to apply for Canadian citizenship. I was shocked to notice that some British subjects who have been living in Canada for 20 or 30 years and are even members of Parliament have not yet applied for Canadian citizenship, which is, in my opinion, scandalous. I am a Canadian citizen and I did apply for my citizenship card. As we are all Canadians, I should ask those who do not want to apply for Canadian citizenship to go back to the country they love so much because they lack logic and do not love Canada enough.
The amendment would allow only Canadians to vote. For example, in the United States, a certificate of American citizenship is required to vote.
The amendment now before us aims at restoring justice, which will lead to the unity everyone desires. The reason for the disagreement is the existence of discrimination.
A moment ago, a member said that if this amendment were adopted, it would give the impression that British subjects are superior to the others. It is true. It is not only an impression, it is true. They have always been considered superior to the others. Now, today, we want them to be treated as all the others so that we can all be "true Canadians".
I think this amendment will achieve that goal. Everybody wants it. The New Canadians want it. The previous speaker tried to put the blame partly on the province of Quebec by saying that especially the French Canadians want it. No, all honest and logical people, all
Canada Elections Act
New Canadians, wherever they come from want Canadian citizenship and want to live in Canada as Canadians.
Others have said-and they repeated the words of a great American-that one should not weaken the strong in order to strengthen the weak. Unfortunately, that does not apply here at all. It is not a matter of the strong or the weak, but one of justice and injustice. If we want Canada to be strong and united, justice must be achieved by allowing Canadians to vote in Canada. Then, the situation will improve, and there will be less disunity.
It is said that this will restrict the franchise. Of course. I was astonished to hear that thousands of British subjects living in Canada would no longer have the right to vote. Did those people really have the right to vote legally, seriously and logically? They were entitled to the franchise through a special favour. Now, finally, they are to have the right to vote as Canadian citizens. Their being Canadian citizens will in no way restrict the right to vote they request. For instance, they could vote tomorrow if they have lived in Canada for 40 years.
I do hope, from the bottom of my heart, that today hon. members understand the importance of this amendment. I ask all members, old or young, whether they are British subjects or from some other groups, in short all those who came to live in Canada to think it over thoroughly before voting on this amendment.
I can understand-I always did-that every time the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) hears something about becoming more Canadian, he is likely to have a heart attack. I believe those who moved the amendment before us made a great step toward progress.
Some members said a while ago that one must not judge by appearances. But since Confederation, we have failed to live our real life, as we were always concerned about appearances.
Surely we are serious enough to forget about our forefathers. It is too late to feel sorry for them but it is time now to make one's life here in Canada. We have to stop crying. We do not feel sorry for France. We have to stop yearning for Great Britain and live in Canada. That is all I ask from new Canadians who earn their living in Canada and who wish for, as we do, a greater Canada, but it must not be done under false pretenses because I cannot see how a British subject would want a greater Canada.

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
I am 100 per cent Canadian. I want a great Canada but a united Canada and we will succeed in this by passing the proposed amendment. As long as there are some who vote against such amendments, the unity of Canada will be impossible to achieve. We have come to the heart of the matter and listening to those who oppose this amendment-fortunately there are not very many-1 was shocked about their approach to life in Canada.


Mr. Pringle:: Mr. Speaker, as a member from British Columbia where we are very proud of our British tradition-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: I can say that we are very thankful for the great pioneering struggles of the British people who came to our country and assisted in the development of that area.
We are also proud of the Spaniards, the San Juans who came up into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and helped by their efforts, and we are proud of the German Mennonite people who have taken up farming in our area and who have done such an excellent job. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would be the last person to say that we are anti any nationality. I would hope that at this time we might all forget the emotionalism which has been raised in the House today. I would hope that we might think in terms of the Canadian fact. I want to be pro-Canadian. I do not believe we have to be anti anything in order to be pro-Canadian.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
It has been suggested that if this amendment is passed we shall be taking away a right. Frankly, I do not believe that. I have talked with a good number of British people in my area, principally about the change in the passport regulations. Some have been confused and some felt that it should not be necessary for them to become Canadian citizens. But I have yet to find one who has said that we are doing the wrong thing by insisting that people in Canada become Canadians. If we pass this amendment, we shall be helping some people to become Canadian citizens.
We change laws every day. We change speed limits. Is that taking away rights? We change regulations and amend laws and statutes to take away, in effect, certain rights of

Canadians every day of the week and, hopefully, add rights which affect Canadians every day of the week. If that were not so there would be little use in the House of Commons sitting here day after day debating the issues of the day.
This amendment has nothing to do with unity. We are talking about Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: Does anyone here suggest that when we talk about Canadians we are going to create disunity among those people who are not Canadians? We are simply inviting those who are not Canadians to be proud enough of this country not only to live with us but to take out Canadian citizenship and help to govern this country. The amendment has nothing to do with preferred citizens. There cannot be preferred citizens. I do not think we have any and I do not know who they are. If it is alleged that there are preferred citizens in this country, then it is high time we made changes; nor should those changes consist merely of repealing certain parts of the Elections Act that confer special privileges on some.
If you were to walk down a street today and ask people about their nationality, I wonder how many would say to you that they are English, Scottish, French, German, Italian, and so on, or would they say, "I am a Canadian"? How many wish to be known as Canadians? It took many years before it was possible for Canadians to have Canadian citizenship. Some suggest that we are not doing the correct thing in this bill to demand that all voters be Canadians.
One could say much more about this amendment, but I feel that I must associate myself with the remarks of the proposer of the amendment. I support the hon. member for Matane as well as the hon. member for Saint-Denis in this matter. I feel confident that the British people in my constituency will accept the fact that they are being invited as British subjects to go a step farther and apply for Canadian citizenship. I believe that we need some patriotism in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: I believe we lack patriotism. What is the matter with going about the country and saying, "We are Canadians; we want Canadians to be patriotic"? We are
June 22, 1970

inviting all people in this country regardless of nationality to apply for Canadian citizenship and by so doing to obtain the right to vote and to help govern this country. Such people can then say, "This may be the country of my adoption but I now have the right to vote and to help in the choosing of the government, and I am a Canadian citizen".


Mr. Forreslall:: Mr. Chairman, may I make one or two comments. May I assure the hon. member who has just sat down that, while I support his view, if he had taken five minutes to read the bill we are considering he would not have been led astray, as I submit he has been, about the contents of the bill, because it says what the hon. member has been expounding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Has somebody else on the government side not bothered to read the biU?


Mr. Nowlan:: That is right. That is not unusual.


J. Michael Forrestall: If others had bothered to come to some of the committee hearings and to take five minutes in which to read the bill, instead of merely talking about their own points of view, they would understand what the provisions of Bill C-215 contain.
Before calling it one o'clock may I say that I think it is regrettable that certain ministers of the government have not taken this opportunity of coming forward and making known their views through a precise statement. I regret that the Minister without Portfolio for York-Scarborough, whose absence from the chamber I regret, has not bothered to come forward and spell out for members of the committee and for all Canadians what his own views with regard to citizenship are. Shortly after assuming the responsibilities entrusted to him he told us that he had very definite views about citizenship. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: At two
o'clock the House will revert to routine proceedings pursuant to the special order made on Thursday, June 18, 1970. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
Committees of the House AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.



CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

Hon. J. C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in the House on Friday I stated that the government would consider moving the drug marijuana from the Narcotic Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act. Outside the House I stated that the government was committed to this course. I got carried away and went too far. The entire government, including myself, was in support of the statement that I gave in the House. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) was quite correct in reiterating that the position of the government which was that they would consider such a move. To the House, to the press to whom I made the comments and to the people, I regret this course of action on my part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in English and in French- Mr. Francis.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
There are some difficulties with the simultaneous translation system. I think that the translators are not here yet.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the difficulty referred to by the hon. member, it might be as well if the House were to wait for a moment or two before proceeding.

Due to the difficulties to which the hon. member has just referred, it would perhaps be advisable if hon. members agreed to wait a few moments before carrying on with the proceedings.
83S6
June 22, 1970

Filing of Patents Applications
I have been advised that the problem has been settled and that we can now resume our debate.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications presented to the House on Thursday, December 11, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that on June 19 Canada signed a Patent Co-operation Treaty at the conclusion of a diplomatic conference held in Washington, D.C., in which 77 countries participated. The purpose of the treaty is to simplify the filing of patent applications on the same invention in a number of different countries. Currently, when inventors and businessmen attempt to obtain protection on the results of their research, they must apply in all the countries where they want patent protection. Under the new treaty, an applicant would be able to file an international application in the patent office of his own country, and the applicant would indicate the countries in which he desired protection.
The treaty is subject to ratification, and it may be some time before enough countries have ratified to bring it into force. We hope it may provide savings to Canadian investors and businessmen and relieve some of the examining burden on the Canadian Patent Office.


Gerald William Baldwin: Since no member of the Official Opposition received a copy of the statement just made by the minister, we shall not make any comment on it.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I think we in the New Democratic Party should say the same.



MANPOWER


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in both official languages of the report on the training of adults participating in the manpower training program under the Occupational Training Act.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. The requirement under that Standing Order is that there must be pressing necessity. Now that we have the white paper on unemployment insurance, and now that we have the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, it is my view that the picture in this general field should be made complete, and without further delay the House ought to have the government's proposed white paper on social policy.
I therefore ask the leave of the House, seconded by my hon. friend for Vancouver-Kingsway, to move:
That this House requests the government to table, before the end of this week, its white paper on social policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Before it can be put to the House, unanimous consent is required. Is there such unanimous consent?
There is not. The motion cannot be put.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on motions?


Pierre De Bané: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a motion under Standing Order 26-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will get a chance to propose his motion later on. I will recognize him in due time.
June 22, 1970

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
[English}



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-225, respecting the retirement of judges.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hyliard G. Chappell: Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow all federally appointed judges to retire at age 70, but they could continue as reserve judges until age 75. They would be able to help clean up the backlog of cases and thus make the courts more immediately available to all people.


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


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-226, to designate Major's Hill Park.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious to anybody who has looked at the order paper that there are a number of bills standing in my name today. I should like to say that my explanation of this bill will also cover the following bill. If the House so wishes, I shall give an explanation of the other 37 bills after Your Honour has called them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that we are now dealing with a bill for the designation of Major's Hill Park. I wonder whether this has anything to do with the other 37 bills to which the hon. member makes reference.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, only the first and second bills standing in my name are similar. This bill deals with designating Major's Hill Park as a place similar to Hyde Park in London where people can demonstrate and do the sort of thing that usually goes on in or near the House of Commons.
Criminal Code


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


Ralph Wesley Stewart: for leave to introduce Bill C-227, to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this bill recognizes the need for the inclusion in the Criminal Code of a provision that will make the disturbing of the dignity and decorum of parliament an offence punishable under the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder whether the House would agree to making a special order with regard to the remaining 37 bills which, in effect, would allow all these bills to be moved in one motion. I understand that the principle involved in all is identical, and the hon. member could make his explanation on the one motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair was disposed to suggest this but has been pre-empted by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the wish of the House that we proceed in the manner suggested by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FIRST READINGS AND ORDERS TO BE PRINTED

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Introduction of Bills.
June 19, 1970-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane)-Bill Intituled: An Act to amend the Air Canada Act.
Ralph Wesley Stewart: The purpose of these 37 bills, Mr. Speaker, is to underline in a singular way the need for representatives of the people, the Members of Parliament, to be appointed to the boards of Crown corporations and agencies, thereby making our authority more commensurate with the responsibility given us by the electorate.
All these bills are identical in that they ask for a Member of Parliament to be included on the board of directors of each of these organizations with the exception of two, those
83S8

June 22, 1970
Criminal Code
which deal with the CBC and the CNR, in respect of which we specifically ask for two Members of Parliament, one from the opposition and one from the government.
Bill No. C-228, to amend the Air Canada Act, Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-229, to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-230, to amend the Bank of Canada Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-231, to amend the Broadcasting Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-232, to amend the Canada Council Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-233, to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporations Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-234, to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act (Consultative Committee)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-235, to amend the Canadian Film Development Corporation Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-236, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-237, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-238, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (Advisory Committee)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-239, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-240, to amend the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-241, to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-242, to amend the Economic Council of Canada Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-243, to amend the Export Development Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-244, to amend the Farm Credit Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-245, to amend the Fisheries Prices Support Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-246, to amend the Fisheries Research Board Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-247, to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).

Bill No. C-248, to amend the Government Organization Act, 1969 (Medical Research Council)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-249, to amend the Government Organization Act, 1969 (Royal Canadian Mint)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-250, to amend the Livestock Feed Assistance Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-251, to amend the Municipal Development and Loan Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-252, to amend the National Arts Centre Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-253, to amend the National Capital Act (National Capital Commission)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill	No.	C-254,	to	amend	the	National
Defence Act (Defence Research Board)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-255, to amend the National Film Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill	No.	C-256,	to	amend	the	National
Library Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill	No.	C-257,	to	amend	the	National
Museums Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill	No.	C-258,	to	amend	the	National
Research Council Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill	No.	C-259,	to	amend	the	Northern
Canada Power Commission Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-260, to amend the Official Languages Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-261, to amend the Saltfish Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-262, to amend the Science Council of Canada Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-263, to amend the Surplus Crown Assets Act (Crown Assets Disposal Corporation)-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
Bill No. C-264, to amend the Telesat Canada Act-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).



INQUIRIES ACT


Gerald William Baldwin: for leave to introduce Bill C-265, to amend the Inquiries Act (Publication of Reports).


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, at the earnest request of my colleagues I will explain this bill. It is a recognition of the fact that the
June 22, 1970

reports resulting from inquiries commissioned under the Inquiries Act do in fact belong to the people of Canada, and not to the Government of Canada, and provides that the commissioners shall, within 15 days after completion of a report, table the same and that members of Parliament under a certain procedure may call for the production and debate of that report. There is a proviso, however, that there will be an exception if the report contains matters relating to security, and if it is so stated by the commission, that shall be accepted.


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

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

Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Who are the members of the federal task force presently considering a plan to unify the civilian and military naval and air operations in Canada's Arctic?
2.	What are the specific terms of reference of the above task force, and when is it anticipated that its report wil be completed?
3.	Will the report be made public?


Mr. Gerard Loiselie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1, 2 and 3. No,
there is no federal task force presently considering a plan to unify the civilian and military naval and air operations in Canada's Arctic.


ARCTIC TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Has an Arctic transportation task force been established within the Department of Transport and, if so, who are the members of this task force and what are their specific terms of reference?
2.	When is it anticipated that the report of the task force wil be completed?
3.	Will the report be made public?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. There is no departmental task force studying Arctic Transportation at the present time. However, there are several working groups studying various aspects of transportation, e.g. airfields, air navigation aids, marine navigation aids.
Questions
2.	The working groups will have continuing responsibilities for the next year and they will report periodically.
3.	Their reports will not be made public.


CORRESPONDENCE FROM A. G. HEAKES
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Has the Prime Minister received letters dated October 16 from Mr. A. G. Heakes and did they contain enclosures of a letter to the Hon. John Robarts?
2.	Did the said letters also contain letters dated July 11 to the Honourable A. A. Wishart, Attorney General addressed jointly to the assistant to the Ontario Public Prosecutor?
3.	Has the Prime Minister received a copy of a letter from A. G. Heakes to the Hon. John Robarts dated October 17 and did the said letter contain an enclosure?
4.	Was Mr. Heakes' letter dated October 16 acknowledged and, if not, for what reason?
5.	If it has been acknowledged, was it answered in detail and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Did the said letter dated October 16 from Mr. Heakes comprise a complaint and, if so, what was the nature of this complaint?
7.	Has a letter dated June 4 from Mr. Heakes to the Solicitor General been answered and, if so, was it answered in detail?
8.	Did the Prime Minister or his secretary acknowledge a file of documents in a letter from Mr. Heakes dated June 30?
9.	What were the documents which Mr. Heakes enclosed?
10.	(a) Did the secretaries to Mr. Trudeau write to Mr. Heakes at any time (b) did Mr. Heakes protest their letters (c) were their letters cited in the letter dated October 16 to Mr. Robarts and its enclosed complaints?
11.	(a) Did the Prime Minister receive a letter dated August 5 from Mr. Heakes (b) has it been acknowledged (c) what was the nature of the said letter dated August 5?
12.	If the said letters from Mr. Heakes to the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General have not been answered in detail, what is the reason?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Yes; complaint against the Hon. R. Bas-ford and against Mr. William J. Morris-willful attempt to defeat the course of justice.
7.	There is no record in the Department of the Solicitor General of a letter dated June 4, 1969, from Mr. Heakes.
8.	Yes; acknowledged by the Correspondence Secretary.

June 22, 1970
Questions
9.	Copy of telegram from Mr. A. G. Heakes to the hon. Ron Basford. Copy of letter from the Hon. Ron Basford to Mr. Heakes. Copy of correspondence from the Hon. John N. Turner to Mr. Heakes. Excerpt from Hansard of June 9, 1961 (Page 6092 and 6093). Copy of correspondence, and enclosure, from la Ligue des droits de l'homme to Mr. Heakes. Copy of correspondence from Bishop Howard, Ruperts-land to Mr. Heakes. Copy of unsigned statement. Excerpt from Hansard of June 2, 1969 (page 9316). Excerpt from Hansard of April 20, 1966.
10.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Yes.
11.	(a) Yes; (b) No; (c) Mr. Heakes again claimed he was the victim of attempts to obstruct the course of justice and of police harassment and mail tampering. He requested an immediate R.C.M.P. investigation into the charges.
12.	The flow of correspondence from Mr. Heakes is constant, frequent (often daily and sometimes more than one a day) and is of a repetitious nature. This correspondence refers mainly to the problems experienced by Mr. Heakes as a result of a bankruptcy in which he was involved several years ago but contains as well allegations by him of conspiracy and libel, of mail tampering and of police harassment. It has been pointed out to Mr. Heakes that his problems are essentially within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. For these reasons much of the correspondence received has been unanswered as it would appear to serve no useful purpose to continue to do so.


PURCHASE OF CF-5'S
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What is the catalogue purchase price of the F-5, manufactured by Northrop Aviation, California?
2.	How many CF-5's did the Canadian Government purchase from Canadair?
3.	What was the purchase price paid by the Canadian Government for each CF-5, manufactured by Canadair?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. We are informed that the 1970 cost of a standard F-5 airplane would be approximately $1,200,000 including federal sales tax.
2.	One hundred and fifteen.
3.	Under present contractual arrangements a final price cannot be established until all payments are made and accounts audited at

the completion of the program. However, it is estimated that the "fly-away" cost per airplane will be about $1,143,000. This does not include development, reconfiguration and support costs; and is subject to adjustment up or down as indicated by government audit of the costs incurred.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OPERATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many programs, studies and/or projects does the Canadian International Development Agency have underway at the present time?
2.	Where is each to be carried out?
3.	What is the total cost of each?
4.	What is Canada's contribution to each?
5.	How many (a) Canadians (b) others, are involved in each?
6.	How many (a) Crown corporations (b) Canadian companies (c) other companies or organizations, are involved?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. 2,848. The Canadian International Development Agency has approximately 2,848 programs, studies and projects underway at the present time. These projects include the provision of economic assistance; that is, capital works, such as hydroelectric power dams, technical schools, transmission lines and irrigation systems and program aid such as food, commodities, and equipment, as well as the provision of technical assistance; that is, the sending of teachers, professors and technical experts overseas to developing countries and the bringing into Canada of students for study and training from developing countries.
2.	The projects are carried out in developing countries to which Canada extends bilateral aid. These countries are located in the following geographic regions:	South and
Southeast Asia; Commonwealth Africa; Francophone Africa; and the Commonwealth Caribbean. In adidtion, there are development loan projects being carried out in the Latin America through the Inter-American Development Bank which acts as administrator for the Government of Canada.
3.	Canada pays the foreign exchange costs of capital works and all the costs of program aid except shipping costs which are normally paid by the developing countries. These countries undertake in the case of capital assistance to absorb certain local costs such as the costs of labour and material to the extent
June 22, 1970

that these are available. Insofar as technical assistance is concerned, the developing countries normally undertake to provide housing free of charge to teachers, professors and technical experts. The local costs are not known on a project by project basis and, as a consequence, no estimate of the total local costs of all projects is available. It is, however, possible to give the total cost of Canada's contribution and this will be found in Part 4 of this question.
4.	From the economic assistance aspects, the answer to this question would require the listing of each pre-feasibility study, each feasibility study and each capital works project, whether paid from Grant Aid funds or from Loan funds. It would also entail listing the names of each teacher, professor and technical expert in the developing countries and of each trainee because each one of these constitutes a project. There are approximately 900 teachers and experts overseas and 1,700 trainees in Canada at the present time. This listing would consequently require the enunciation of literally thousands of projects. The total Canadian contributions to all projects in the 1969-70 fiscal year was $136,609,601 out of bilateral Grant Aid funds, and $71,117,308 out of Development Loan funds.
5.	(a) This information is not complete because many Canadians are abroad in the development field as employees of Canadian Companies, firms, organizations or educational institutions with which this Agency has master contracts, and as a consequence the responsibility for the provision of personnel rests with the contractors. The number of Canadians who are overseas under direct contract to the Agency is approximately 1,000. These are, in the main, teachers, professors, and technical experts, (b) Not known.
6.	(a) Approximately five Crown corporations involved, (b) Approximately 131. (c) Not known.


SALE OF AIRCRAFT ENGINES AND PARTS TO PORTUGAL
Mr. Broadbeni: 1.	Did Canadian companies sell aircraft engines and parts to Portugal in 1968 and, if so, which ones?
2.	Did any of the equipment have a potential military use?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes, various types of piston engines and parts produced on a sole 22478-41
Questions
source basis in Canada by United Aircraft of Canada Limited were sold to Portugal.
2.	The equipment is for use with propeller driven general utility transport aircraft designed for commercial use; any potential military use would be limited by the performance characteristics of this older type aircraft.


CANCER RESEARCH
Mr. Chappell: What is the total amount spent by the federal government for cancer research during the past five years and by whom was such research carried out?


John Carr Munro: During the past five years, a total amount of $1,900,000 was spent by the Department of National Health and Welfare for cancer research; this was in the form of Health Grants to the National Cancer Institute, which supports research carried out in Canadian Universities and other institutions; to the Institut de Microbiologie et d'Hygiene in Montreal; to St. John's General Hospital in Newfoundland; and to the Saskatchewan Cancer Commission Clinics. The Medical Research Council spent $6,583,350 in grants-in-aid to support cancer research; this amount does not include the figures for the year 1969-70 which are not yet available. The research in all instances was carried out by scientists on the staff of Canadian Universities and affiliated institutions.


WOOD ISLANDS-CARIBOU FERRY SERVICE
Mr. MacLean: What amount is provided in the 1970-71 estimates for the purpose of expanding the capacity of the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service?


Gérard Loiselle: Although no amount has been specifically provided, a search is being carried out for a suitable existing vessel.


LEGISLATION REQUIRING THAT PRICING OF ALL GOODS FOR SALE INCLUDE ALL COSTS
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the advisability of providing legislation requiring that the placing of all goods for sale shall include all costs in connection with same?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No.

June 22, 1970
Questions


HEALTH AND WELFARE-MINISTER'S VISIT TO PRINCE RUPERT
Mr. Howard (Skeena): During the time that the Honourable John Munro, Minister of National Health and Welfare was in Prince Rupert, B.C. recently, what is the name of each group with whom he met, the duration of each such meeting, the topic or topics discussed, the commitments made and the conclusions, if any, which were reached?


John Carr Munro: I find it difficult to answer the hon. member's question because I did not meet with any group which had a name, nor did I time my meetings with people. The topics discussed covered a wide range, mainly medical health facilities. There were no commitments made in the City of Prince Rupert, which served only as a base from which myself, my officials and the press party visited the Indian communities of Kincolith and Greenville on the Nass River and Masset on the Queen Charlotte Islands. Commitments and conclusions were made with the Indians in their communities and not in Prince Rupert.


DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LIMITED-FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	For each year 1958 to 1970, what have been the federal government financial grants and subsidies to the De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Limited?
2.	What financial assistance has been given to De Havilland from the Government of Canada regarding STOL aircraft?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Insofar as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Financial assistance was provided by the Department to The de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., as follows:
	Defence	Program for
	Industry	Advancement
	Productivity	of Industrial
Fiscal Year	Program	Technology
	$	$
1958/59	-	-1959/60	341,300	-1960/61	604,788	-1961/62	465,441	-1962/63	303,906	-1963/64	6,004,482	-1964/65	3,455,033	-1965/66	1,319,841	-1966/67	383,721	20,2871967/68	581,023	30,2441968/69	1,699,119	-1969/70	1,739,951	-(To Jan. 31,	1970)	

2.	The Department provided $12,968,552 (included in 1 above) to assist The de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. to develop and produce STOL aircraft of the Buffalo and Twin Otter type and to conduct the early development phase of the DHC-7 STOL aircraft.
Insofar as the Department of National Defence is concerned: 1. Contributions under the Defence Industrial Research Program, which was not instituted until the 1961-62 fiscal year are made by Defence Research Board as follows:
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
2.	$1,656,958.


NEW BRUNSWICK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-ASSISTANCE FROM ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Corbin: 1.	Has the New Brunswick Development Corporation ever requested financial assistance from the Atlantic Development Board?
2.	For what projects or studies was this aid required and what was the nature of each project or study?
3.	For each project or study, how much did ADB contribute and on what dates?
4.	Was any request for assistance refused by ADB?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) Westmoreland Industrial Park (Dorchester Point, New Brunswick) to provide basic facilities (wa'er, sewage and road), (b) Champlain Industrial Park basic facili'ies. (c) Fish Port Study, Charlotte County, New Brunswick. Cost of a Study to explore the feasibility of developing a modern fish port complex, (d) Multiple Industry Study to design and promote an industrial complex of metalworking industries as an instrument for the acceleration of economic growth in the Province of New Brunswick, (e) Water supply for Herring reduction plant at Head Harbour on Campobello Island.
3.	(a) Westmoreland Industrial Park $1,471,296, January 1967 and November 1968.
Nil

June 22, 1970

(b) Fish Port Study, Charlotte County, $55,000, February 1970. (c) Multiple Industry Study, $173,000, September 1969 and December 1969.
4.	No formal refusal was made on Champlain Industrial Park or the water supply at Head Harbour but agreements were not finalized.


DOMTAR LIMITED, DOLBEAU
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,437
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Has Domtar Company operating at Dolbeau submitted an expansion project to the government with a view to creating employment and, if so, what amount has Domtar received for the years 196566-67-68 and 69 for research in the Dolbeau area?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: No. Section 13 of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act prohibits the divulgence of information concerning any corporation. No monies have been made available through the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology or the Defence Industry Productivity Program wi'h respect to Dolbeau, a facility of Domtar Ltd.


C.N.R. SALARIES
Mr. Broadbeni: 1.	What were the total wage and salary payments made by the Canadian National to its Railway employees for each year since 1960?
2.	What were the total wage and salary payments made by the CNR to its employees whose wages and salaries were determined by collective agreements for each year since 1960?
3.	What were the total wage and salary payments made by the CNR to its employees whose wages and salaries were determined other than by collective agreement?
4.	(a) What was the average number of employees of CNR for each year since 1960 (b) what was the average number of employees of CNR covered by collective agreements in each year since 1960?
5.	(a) What were the average annual earnings of employees of CNR covered by collective agreements in each year since 1960 (b) what were the average annual earnings of employees of CNR not covered by collective agreements?
6.	What were the actual amounts, included in direct payments to employees, for vacation pay, for general holidays, for sick leave and for personal leave and what proportion of total labour costs do these amounts represent?
7.	What were the actual amounts paid by the Company each year since 1960 or since the inception of the Job Security Agreement into the Job Security Fund and what proportion did this amount represent of total labour costs?
2247S-414
Questions
8.	What was the Company's contributions to benefit plans including pension plans, to health plans including provincial medicare plans, for each year since 1960, and what proportion do these amounts represent of total labour costs?
9.	Assuming a definition of total labour costs to be all direct and indirect payments to employees including the Company's contributions to Workmen's Compensation, to Unemployment Insurance and to Canada Pension Plan, what proportion of total costs were represented by labour costs for each year since 1960?


Gérard Loiselle: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: In view of the current and prospective labour negotiations between the Railway and the various unions representing most of the schedule employees on Canadian lines, it is not considered in the best interests of the Company to disclose the information in the form requested. Most of the data such as average number of employees, service hours paid for, total compensation, average hours paid for, average salaries and wages per hour and per year may be obtained in a more general form from Part VI (Employment Statistics) of Railway Transport published annually by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


SUBSIDY PAID TO MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY 1960 TO 1969
Mr. Robinson: What was the total subsidy paid to the manufacturing industry during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The only assistance program involving subsidies, as listed by parliamentary appropriation, to secondary industries is for shipbuilding which provides capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council. The subsidies provided for fiscal years 1960-1969 inclusive, are as follows:	The	following
amounts were paid out by the Canadian Maritime Commission under the Ship Construction Assistance Regulations:
1960-	61*
1961- 62	$ 2,025,261.36
1962-	63	22,500,000.001963-	64	40,000,000.001964-	65	32,000,000.001965-	66	40,512,684.161966-	67	26,778,277.11

*As subsidies were not introduced until May of 1961, there are no figures for 1960/61.

June 22, 1970
Questions
The following amounts have been paid under the Ship Construction Subsidy Regulations:
1966- 67	$ 9,042,867.90
1967-	68	39,331,611.731968-	69	22,333,022.431969-	70	14,214,941.52


$84,922,443.58 CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	Since in answer to Question Number 1,080 it is indicated in 1969 no sentence of corporal punishment was awarded by an institutional board of discipline, does this mean that corporal punishment has been suspended for use in federal institutions and, if so, by whom was the action taken and for what period of time is it to be in effect?
2.	Is a similar action to be taken with respect to court orders?
3.	What plans has the government with respect to the abolition of corporal punishment?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of the Solicitor General and Justice as follows: 1. No.
2.	As for 1.
3.	The government position on corporal punishment will be made known when action is taken to amend the Criminal Code.


AUTHORITY TO GOLDEN EAGLE COMPANY TO PURCHASE RUSSIAN NAPHTHA
Mr. Dumont: Does the Golden Eagle Company have authority to purchase Russian naphtha rather than Canadian naphtha?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Canadian government does not restrict imports of naphtha other than for use as a component in the blending of motor gasoline destined for consumption in Ontario, west of the Ottawa Valley. The source of this material is, of course, up to the company to decide.


WITHDRAWAL OF CANADA FROM WORLD HOCKEY TOURNAMENT
Mr. Thompson (Red Deer): 1.	What amount was paid by the federal government to cover the loss resulting from the withdrawal of Canada from the World Hockey Tournament?

2.	What are the details of this amount, including any salaries for officials and hockey players?


John Carr Munro: 1. No moneys have been paid to date.
2. At present consideration is being given to pay the out of pocket expenses incurred by: (a) Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, $71,922; (b) Canadian Arena Company, Montreal, $23,000; (c) Winnipeg Enterprises Corporation (This includes the re-payment to the province of Manitoba of $25,962.09 which was a grant made to the Winnipeg Enterprises Corporation.) The Hockey Canada Corporation has agreed to pay these expenses and it is proposed the Federal Government reimburse Hockey Canada, $78,305. No payments are being made for salaries for officials and hockey players resulting from the withdrawal of Canada from the World Championship.


REGULATIONS REGARDING HEATING OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Are here any regulations established by the Department of Supply and Services regarding coal and fuel oil for use in heating of federal government buildings and plants and, if so, what are these regulations?
2.	Are there any regulations regarding the maximum percentage of sulfur content on coal and fuel oil purchases?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. Yes. Coal and fuel oil for heating of Federal Government buildings and plants are bought in accordance with Canadian Government Specifications Board Standards. (Canadian Government Specifications Standards 3GP-2(d) d/31 Dec. 68; 18GP-2(d) d/24 Apr 62; 18GP-4(a) d/2 Sept 66; 18GP-5(a) d/2 Sept 66; 18GP-7 d/9 May 69; 18GP-8 d/10 Feb 67 and 18GP-3 d/24 Apr 52.)
2. These standards point out that the maximum level permitted of the sulphur content of the fuels is related to the particular heating plant design and local conditions. The accepted tenders require guaranteed sulphur contents to meet the requirements of the plant design and its location.


REQUEST THAT FARMERS BE PAID 1968-69 INITIAL PRICE FOR GRAIN
Mr. Southam: Will the government give consideration to farmers' requests that they be paid the 1968-69 initial price for grain delivered on deferred, delivery permits?
June 22, 1970


Hon. Oilo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: No, under the terms of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, it is not possible to make two different ini'ial payments for the same grade of grain in any one crop year.


PROMOTION OF SALE OF CANADIAN GRAIN
Mr. Southam: Is it the government's intention to establish an overseas network of market experts to promote the sale of Canadian grain as advocated by the Canada Grains Council?


Otto Emil Lang: The feasibility of this proposal is under study by the Canada Grains Council which has not yet made its recommendations to government.


NATO-SALE OR PURCHASE OF MILITARY ARMS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	What arrangements exist with our NATO allies for the sale or purchase of military arms or equipment?
2.	Since 1960, what military equipment has been sold to our NATO partners and to whom?
3.	What was the purchase price and what has been the eventual use of this equipment?
4.	Since 1960, what military arms or equipment have we purchased from our NATO allies?
5.	What was the cost and what has been the eventual use of these arms and equipment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. The sale of military equipment is not specifically dealt with in the North Atlantic Treaty or any other multilateral agreement among members of the Alliance. The purchase or sale of arms is a matter of individual national policy. There are, however, various arrangements within the Alliance for co-operation in the research, development and production of military equipment in which there is a common interest.
2.	Since 1960, Canada has sold military equipment to our NATO partners in the following categories: aircraft, aircraft engines and related spares, airframes and related assemblies and spares, other aircraft equipment and supplies, ammunition and electronics and communications equipment. Items of equipment in these categories were purchased by: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, United States and Britain.
3.	The total value of Canadian sales on a contract basis was $2,754 million, which in-
Questions
eludes purchases by the United States in the years 1960-1969, and by other NATO countries for the period 1962-1969. Comparable statistics on purchases by our European NATO partners for the years 1960 and 1961 are not available. It is understood that the equipment is for use in carrying out roles within NATO. However, specific applications are a matter of national decision.
4.	The following major equipments have been purchased: Aircraft C 130, Falcon, Albatross, Helicopters CUH-1H, IN, CH 113, 112. Ships, "Oberon" class submarines. Vehicles, Armoured Personnel Vehicles including Command Post and Recovery. Ordnance, M109 Howitzer, Honest John Rocket System, ENT AC and Sll Guided Missiles, Automatic Naval Guns, M72 LAW Weapons, 105 MM Pack Howitzer. Electronics and Communications: Anti-submarine warfare data systems, S654 Radar System, Inertial Navigation Systems, Radio Sets, Weather Radar. In addition minor equipments and components were purchased in the following categories: Aircraft, missiles, ammunition, electronic and communication equipment, ships, tank-automotive, weapons.
5.	The value of Canadian purchases of military equipment from our NATO allies since 1960 is recorded as $2,058 million. The equipment purchased abroad has been taken into the Department of National Defence inventory for use in the fulfilment of assigned military roles.


LOBBYISTS
Mr. Robinson: Is there a federal government requirement for organized pressure or interest groups or lobbyists to be registered and, if so, (a) how many are there in Canada (b) how many have made demands on (i) the legislative (ii) the executive (iii) the administrative sectors of government, in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive and to what extent did each achieve its purpose?


Yves Forest: No.


CANCER RESEARCH
Mr. Rynard: 1.	During each of the past five fiscal years, what has been the amount of grants paid by the Government of Canada to the National Cancer Institute, the Canadian Cancer Society or other organizations for the purposes of cancer research?
2.	Has there been a reduction in the amount of such grants for the next fiscal period and, if so, what is the amount of the grants for the next fiscal year and what are the reasons for such reduction?

June 22, 1970
Questions


John Carr Munro: 1. Under the Health Grants program, based on projects submitted by the provinces and the institute, federal assistance provided to the Na'ional Cancer Institute in support of research carried out in Canadian Universities and other institutions in the last five years was as follows:
1965-	66	$350,0001966-	67	$350,0001967-	68	$350,0001968-	69	$350,0001969-	70	$350,000
Federal assistance is not currently provided directly under the Health Grants, to either the Canadian Cancer Society or other organizations for the purpose of cancer research.
2.	For the fiscal year 1970-71, an amount of $250,000 has been approved for the National Cancer Institute under the National Health Grant where support is normally directed to short-term projects of an operational nature and of not more than three years' duration. The National Health Grant is not intended to provide annually, large blocks of funds to voluntary organizations in support of continuing programs. The Medical Research Council, which has been provided with increasing amounts of funds in the past few years, is the principal source of federal assistance for scientific research in the medical field, including that of cancer. The policy of the Council is to make its awards directly to researchers.
Thus the reduction in assistance from the National Health Grant need not represent a reduction in the level of government funds available for cancer research, but rather reflects a reorientation as to the federal agency from which such assistance might be sought and of the procedure to be followed.


REQUIREMENT THAT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS MAKE PUBLIC YEARLY STATEMENT
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the feasibility of requiring all "charitable organizations" to make public a yearly statement of policy and programme and to what extent it has been carried out?


Yves Forest: The Department of National Health and Welfare has no authority or requirement for "charitable organizations" to make a yearly public statement on policy and programme. However, the
[Mr. Rynard.)
policies and activities of "charitable organizations" receiving financial support from the Department are carefully monitored and regularly assessed.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO MOHAWK SPORTS EQUIPMENT LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Mohawk Sports Equipment Limited, Toronto, Ontario, and if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of Mohawk Sports Equipment Limited and what is the address of each?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows:
1.	This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2.	Mohawk Sports Equipment Limited was incorporated under the laws of the province of Ontario on February 21, 1969. No information is available on the names and addresses of the directors and officers.
3.	No information available.
4.	No information available.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO HERMES ELECTRONICS LIMITED
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Incentives Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Hermes Electronics Limited, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive of Hermes Electronics Limited and what is the address of each?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Consumer and Corporate Affairs as follows:
1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
June 22, 1970

2.	Hermes Electronics Limited was incorporated under the laws of the province of Nova Scotia on March 9, 1970. No information is available on the names and addresses of the directors and officers.
3.	No information available.
4.	No information available.


TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Does the Republic of South Africa get the benefit of the British Preferential Tariff, as provided by the Customs Tariff Act, R.S.C., 1952 c 60 S.3?
2.	Does Canada get the benefit of any preferential tariff granted by the Republic of South Africa?
3.	What is the volume of imports into Canada from the Republic of South Africa and the items affected thereby for the last years for which figures are available since 1963?
4.	What is the volume of exports from Canada to the Republic of South Africa which receives the benefit of a preferential tariff granted by the Republic of South Africa and what is the nature of the items so affected?
5.	(a) Has any action been taken by the Governor in Council to withdraw the benefit of the British Preferential Tariff from the Republic of South Africa or is such withdrawal contemplated by reason of the fact that the Republic of South Africa has ceased to be a country within the Commonwealth of Nations for many years (b) in the review of external policy now being undertaken by the Government of Canada, has consideration been given to the withdrawal of the British Preferential Tariff from the Republic of South Africa with a view to underlining the fact that the apartheid policies of the Republic of South Africa are abhorrent to the people of Canada and contrary to the numerous international declarations on human rights and against racial discrimination?
6.	What votes have been cast by Canada in the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly in respect of any actions or declarations of the United Nations or any agency thereof in respect to the maintenance of apartheid or other forms of racial discrimination within the Republic of South Africa since April 26, 1965?
6. United Nations General Assembly Resolutions on Apartheid
2054	(XX)	1965	A B2202	(XXI)	1966	A B2307	(XXII)	1967	2396	(XXIII)	1968	2506	(XXIV)	1969	A B
Questions
Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and External Affairs as follows:
1.	The Republic of South Africa continues to receive the benefit of the British Preferential Tariff as provided by the Customs Tariff Act, R.S.C. 1952, c.60, s.3.
2.	The Republic of South Africa grants preferential tariff entry to certain Canadian goods in accordance with the terms of the 1932 trade agreement between the two countries.
3.	Sta'istics of all imports from the Republic of South Africa in the years 1963 to 1968 have been published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in the December issues of "Trade of Canada-Imports by Countries" Catalogue No. 65-006. These publications are ob'ainable from the Queen's Printer and are available for reference in all public libraries and the Parliamentary library. In 1969 the total value of imports was $45.9 million. All South Africa goods are subject to the rates of the British Preferential Tariff if shipped directly to Canada.
4.	Statis'ics of all exports to the Republic of South Africa can be found in the "Trade of Canada-Exports by Countries" Catalogue No. 65-003. In 1969, the total value of Canadian exports to the Republic of South Africa was $78.5 million. It is estimated that approximately $10.2 million was eligible for preferential tariff treatment. Principal goods exported to South Africa at preferential value were:-lumber ($5.4 million); newsprint ($2.9 million); canned fish ($851 thousand); and mechanics and artisans' tools ($500 thousand).
5.	(a) No. (b) The Secretary of State for External Affairs stated in reply to a similar question in the House on March 23 that all aspects of our trade with South Africa will be reviewed.
For	Vote Against	Abstaining80	2	16 (Canada)95 (Canada)	1	184	2	13 (Canada)99 (Canada)	1	189	2	12 (Canada)85	2	14 (Canada)lOl(Canada)	2	680	5	23 (Canada)
June 22, 1970
Questions
During Canada's term on the United Nations Security Council (1967-68) there were no resolutions on apartheid considered by the Council.
Note: Above designations of "A" and "B" constitute parts of the same resolution upon which separate votes were taken.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-APPOINTMENT OF EARL DAWSON
Mr. Coates: 1	Has Earl Dawson been appointed to the staff of the Department of National Health and Welfare and, if so, what are (a) his duties (b) his salary?
2.	What qualifications has Mr. Dawson for the position?


John Carr Munro: 1. A contract has been entered into with Mr. Dawson to act as the Western Regional Representative of the Fitness and Amateur Sport program. He will be used as liaison officer to deal with special sports and recreation problems in Western Canada. The contract provides for a salary of $1,333 per month.
2.	Mr. Dawson has a broad knowledge of Canadian Sports Development and has a great deal of practical experience in sport and related activities. He is and has been President of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association since October 1968 (acting) and since May, 1969, President in his own right. Prior to assuming the presidency he served for a number of years as one of the senior executive officers of the Association. He has also given many years of long service to the Manitoba Amateur Hockey Association. He has been involved in the bidding, promoting and organizing of a number of championships including the World Hockey Tournament that was to have taken place in Winnipeg last March. He has led Canadian delegations to International meetings abroad in connection with his duties and three times has been Canada's official representative to the International Ice Hockey Federation meetings. In Canada he has been the Chairman of the Amateur Hockey Negotiation Committee in dealings with the National Hockey League. He has served many other community interests, including the Kiwanis groups and has been an active worker in community projects.


INCENTIVE GRANT TO SPRINGER-PENGUIN INC.
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, under the Regional Development Incentives

Act, authorized or provided an incentive grant to Springer-Penguin Inc., Amherst, Nova Scotia, and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of Springer-Penguin Inc. and what is the address of each?
3.	To what extent is this company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership in this company?


Yves Forest: 1. This information was contained in the monthly report, tabled in Parliament on the operation of the Regional Development Act.
2,	3, and 4. This information is not presently available as this corporation is not required to report under any Act of Parliament.


FEDERAL GRANT TO FRONTIER COLLEGE
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to provide Frontier College with an operating grant of $50,000 for their 1970 program?
2.	Has the government made a decision as to the amount of financial assistance Frontier College might expect in future years?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Dept, of Labour as follows: 1. No. The Department of Manpower & Immigration decided to double its grant to Frontier College from $5,000 in 1969-70 to $10,000 in 1970-71. The Department of Labour has provision it its 1970-71 Estimates for a grant of $5,000 to the College.
2.	No. However, beginning with 1971-72, the Department of Manpower and Immigration will assume sole responsibility within the federal jurisdiction for federal grants to Frontier College. Some financial support of an indirect nature can also be given in the form of purchases, by the Department, of training and research services under the Adult Occupational Training Act. In this connection, the Department has had many discussions with the provinces and with Frontier College in an attempt to increase such purchases, which under the law require provincial concurrence. Purchases have been relatively small, mainly for the reason that provinces consider that they can supply the training required through provincially operated institutions,
June 22, 1970


EXTENSION OF EXISTING COPYRIGHT LAWS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Does the federal government plan to extend existing copyright laws to allow provision for libraries to make limited use of photocopying techniques?
2.	Has the federal government received any representations from publishing houses or libraries, regarding the use of photocopying and its implications, with respect to existing copyright laws?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Copyright is among the matters referred by the Federal Government to the Economic Council of Canada. The report is expected towards the end of this year and until it is received and considered, it is not the intention to introduce amendments to the present copyright legislation.
2. Yes, through the Interdepartmental Committee on Copyright.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-AIR FARES FOR NEWS REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING PRESS CONFERENCE
Mr. Burton: What was the cost to the Canadian Wheat Board of the air fare for seven news representatives to attend a press conference on or about August 21, 1969, as referred to in Question Number 1,573?


Otto Emil Lang: The costs to the Canadian Wheat Board for the air fare for the seven news representatives was $532.


DAIRY PRODUCTS IMPORTED FROM IRELAND AND HOLLAND
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since April 1, 1970, has Canada imported from Ireland and Holland powdered milk or some other form of dairy products with a minimum protein content of 25 per cent and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for what purpose have these imported products been used?


Yves Forest: In so far as
the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the answer is: (a) The classes of the Import Commodity Classification relating to dairy products are not based on protein content, therefore, the import statistical data as compiled and published by the External Trade Division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics are not sufficiently detailed to provide a reply to this question. However, in the month of
Questions
April, 1970, imports from Ireland of "Milk, cream and by-products, powdered" (under D.B.S. commodity class 51-59) amounted to 575 cwt. with a value of $14,000. In this period there were no imports of this material from Holland, (b) Information on end use of these imported products is not provided by the importers.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENTERPRISE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In each of the past ten years, with respect to federal government enterprises, what were (a) the number of employees (b) the gross salary?
2.	In each of the past ten years in Canada, what were (a) the number of workers (b) the total of their salaries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that:
1.	(a) and (b) In each of the past ten years, with respect to federal government enterprises, the number of employees and gross salaries were as follows:
Year	No. of employees as at March 31	Gross Salaries $'0001958	130,376	544,3091959	140,043	590,4031960	132,360	623,5141961	131,012	642,4091962	127,858	651,4941963	128,137	667,9591964	131,028	708,6551965	131,242	749,7361966	135,041	813,3231967	130,111	1,081,6031968	127,322	927,2672.	(a) In each of the past ten years in Canada the number of employed paid workers estimated in thousands, was as follows:Year	Number1959	4,7351960	4,8431961	4,9111962	5,0891963	5,2411964	5,4661965	5,7601966	6,0961967	6,3051968	6,4901969	6,720(b) Not available.	
June 22, 1970
Questions


FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD-POSITION OF CARETAKER AT FATTY BASIN PROJECT
Mr. Barnett: 1.	Since January 1, 1970, was a tender called to fill the position of caretaker at the Fatty Basin project of the Fisheries Research Board on Useless Inlet and, if so, how many offers to fill this position were received?
2.	Has the contract been awarded and, if so (a) to whom (b) over what period (c) what is the amount of remuneration per annum?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. Tender called to fill position of caretaker and 41 offers received.
2.	Contract awarded, (a) Initial contract, Fred Fraser, Port Alberni, B.C.; Subsequent contract, C. Murphy, P.O. Box 1112, Ladysmith, B.C. (b) Period, (i) March 24 to April 10, 1970; (ii) April 21, 1970 to March 31, 1971. (c) (i) $3,000 per annum; (ii) $3,600 per annum.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-CLOSURE OF POOL ACCOUNTS 1968-69
Mr. Burton: On what date or dates were the Pool accounts for the 1968-69 crop year closed for (a) wheat (b) oats (c) barley, as managed by the Canadian Wheat Board?


Yves Forest: The answer to part (a) of the question is as follows. The 1968-69 Wheat Pool account has not yet been closed. The answer to part (b) of the question is March 13, 1970. The answer to part (c) of the question is February 13, 1970.


LOANS GRANTED TO QUEBEC STUDENTS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Is the interest on loans granted to Quebec students refunded by the federal government?
2.	What is the agreement with the Province of Quebec?
3.	Can a student from Quebec get a loan guaranteed by the federal government?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	The Province of Quebec does not participate in the Canada Student Loans Plan but operates its own student aid program. Under the legislation for the Canada Student Loans program provision is made for the payment of an alternate payment to non-participating provinces. The amount of alternate payment is calculated by multiplying the aggregate of all amounts paid to the lenders during the loan year, (i.e., interest payments on student

loans made to students from participating provinces, loss claims paid on loans and fees for collections by lenders after payment of a claim) by the quotient obtained by dividing the estimated number of persons 18 to 24 years of age in the non-participating province by the estimated number of persons in the same age group in the participating provinces. For the loan year ended June 30, 1969, the payment made to Quebec under this arrangement was $2,915,698.49.
2.	The arrangements between the Federal Government and a non-participating province are those set out in the legislation as outlined in 1 above.
3.	Under the legislation, participating provinces determine the persons to whom Certificates of Eligibility shall be issued and any loans made count against the allocation made to them under the legislation. Since the allocation to participating provinces is based upon the population aged 18-24 years, loans are normally made only to residents of the participating province concerned.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Finance have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	Computer services have been utilized on a service contract basis since 1967.
2.	N/A
3.	Estimated $60,000 for fiscal year 1970-71.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES
Mr. Diefenbaker: In how many instances have closures of post offices been made in constituencies represented by Members supporting (a) the Liberals (b) the Conservatives (c) the NDP (d) the Social Credit?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: The answer to the first question is during the period of 25 June, 1968 to May 31, 1970. (a) 522; (b) 601; (c) 92; (d) 81.



Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	By province, how many post offices have been closed by order and direction of the government?
June 22, 1970



2.	In how many cases, by province, have revocations of such closure orders been made?


Eric William Kierans: The answer to part 1 of the question is since 25 June, 1968: Newfoundland, 58; P.E.I., 31; Nova Scotia, 121; New Brunswick, 101; Quebec, 248; Ontario, 336; Manitoba, 62; Saskatchewan, 175; Alberta, 117; British Columbia, 46; Yukon, 2; Northwest Territories, 2.
The answer to part 2 is: Newfoundland, 12; Nova Scotia, 1; New Brunswick, 1; Manitoba, 1; Saskatchewan, 3.


PERCENTAGE OF FEDERAL TAX COLLECTION SPENT BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of tax collected by the federal government has been spent by the federal government in each year 1940 to 1969 inclusive?


Edgar John Benson: In each fiscal year from 1940-41 to 1968-69 total federal expenditures, including Old Age Security and contributions to provinces and municipalities, exceeded 100 per cent of the total federal tax collections with the exception of two fiscal years, 1947-48 and 1948-49 where they amounted to 89.6 per cent and 89.3 per cent respectively. It should be noted that in addition to being financed by tax revenue, federal expenditures are financed by other revenue sources, such as investment income, borrowing and reductions in the government's cash balances. Monies collected by the federal government and paid out to provinces under the Tax Collection Agreements, operative since 1962-63, have not been included.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-DISCUSSION OF AGE OF ELECTORS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Since January 1, 1970, what is the name of each Indian Band with whom the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has discussed the question of the age of electors as defined in the Indian Act and the date of each such conversation?
2	What has been the view expressed by each such Band with respect to this question?


Yves Forest: 1. I have no official discussions with particular Indian bands on this question. However, the regional director in Bri'.ish Columbia discussed it with the chief of the Kitkatla Band and with the chief of the Nanaimo Band during the latter part of April, and discussions also took place in P.E.I. prior to the last provincial 22478-424
Questions
elections with the chief of the reserve. The union of B.C. chiefs have been informed of the new provincial legislation and were told that possible changes are being considered by the department. In other provinces no discussions have taken place. However, I have asked my departmental officials to speak with the band leaders to receive an expression of their views.
2. The views expressed by the band leaders in B.C. and P.E.I. who have discussed this subject with the regional director and his superintendents reveal a desire to have the provincial age of 19 apply to band elections.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-BROKERAGE FEES RECEIVED BY CARGILL GRAIN LTD.
Mr. Rondeau: How much has Cargill Grain Ltd. of Winnipeg, authorized agent for the Canadian Wheat Board, received in brokerage fees following the negotiations leading to the sale of 500,000 metric tons (18.3 million bushels) of wheat to the United Arab Republic?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Wheat Board does not pay remuneration to its agents for negotiating Canadian grain sales.


PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date was the Prices and Incomes Commission established and what has been the cost to the federal government to date?
2.	Who is the Chairman of the Commission and what is his annual salary and what has been to date the amount of his expenses?
3	Who produced the recent pamphlet mailed by the Commission to many Canadians, what was the cost of the pamphlet, how many were mailed, was postage paid for the mailing of the pamphlet and, if so, what was the cost of the postage and if postage was not paid, for what reason and are Commissions also given free postage privileges and, if so, by what authority?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: 1. (a) June 19, 1969. (b) (i) Fiscal Year 1969-70, $555,600; (ii) Fiscal Year (April 1, 1970 to May 25, 1970, $137,907).
2.	(a) John H. Young, (b) Mr. Young is paid a salary in the range of a D.M. 3 ($37,000-$40,000). (c) (i) Travel expenses from May 7, 1969 to May 25, 1970, $4,745.70; (ii) Removal expenses $2,040.41.

June 22, 1970
Questions
3.	(a) The leaflet was prepared by the staff of the Prices and Incomes Commission and printed by the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, (b) The invoice for the printing has not yet been received, but it is estimated that the cost will be about $25,000. (c) As of May 25, 1970 approximately 3.5 million copies of the leaflet had been mailed, (d) No. (e) The Commission is a department for purposes of the Financial Administration Act under authority of P.C. 1969-1294 of June 25, 1969, and as such qualifies for franking privileges, in accordance with Section 17 of the Post Office Act.


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-DATA PROCESSING
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
2.	1960-65	1965-66
	$	$
Equipment	Not	
Purchased	Available	150,110
Equipment	Not	
Rented	Available	399,008
		549,118
3.	1970-71 anticipated rental of equipment $744,460.
In so far as Customs and Excise is concerned.
1.	Customs and Excise has no data processing equipment at the present time. Excise Tax has a contract with the I.B.M. service bureau for an automated information distribution service to licencees. The system has been in effect for two years and costs approximately ten thousand dollars per year.
2.	N/A.
3.	Anticipated yearly cost, based on program forecast, for a proposed data processing department is: 1970-71, $156,000.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-USE OF COMPUTER
Mr. Robinson: 1 Does the Department of Finance have the use of a computer In its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day, and, if not, for what reason?

3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the department?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes, since January, 1968.
2.	Nil, the equipment is on a lease basis.
3.	$152,500.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE-DATA PROCESSING
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of National Revenue have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: 1. Yes, since 1960.
1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70

-	-	1,422,000	621,345482,464	899,853	1,229,013	877,206482,464	899,853 2,651,013 1,498,5513.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	The Department of Finance uses a computer services bureau on a payment for service basis.
2.	The computer service facilities are accessible at varying times but never used 24 hours per day. The services are used when needed so that computer operations are only charged for when the services are being used.
3.	Utilization is estimated only in cost terms and the planned use in 1970-71 is expected to be about $60,000.
4.	1960-61 to 1966-67, Nil;	1967-68,$35,236.54;	1968-69,	$76,904.20;	1969-70,

5.	None.
June 22, 1970


LOANS GRANTED BY CANADA TO UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES 1960-69 INCLUSIVE
Mr. Matte: What are the amounts of interest free loans that Canada granted to underdeveloped countries in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 and what was the amount to each country?


Mitchell William Sharp: PRICES AND INCOME COMMISSION PUBLICATION "FIGHT INFLATION-SAVE JOBS!"


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand): 1.	With respect to the recent mailing piece entitled "Fight Inflation-Save Jobs!" prepared by the Prices and Incomes Commission, what was the total number of letters on the topic sent out?
Questions
2.	Who did the printing?
3.	What was the cost of printing?
4.	What was the total cost (hidden and other) of mailing?
5.	To whom were they mailed?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: 1. As of May 25, 1970 approximately 3.5 million copies of the leaflet had been mailed out. It is estimated that the total mailing would approximate 5.5. million copies.
2.	Canadian Government Printing Bureau.
3.	The invoice for the printing has not yet been received but it is estimated that the cost will be about $25,000.
4.	The Commission is a department for purposes of the Financial Administration Act under authority of P.C. 1969-1294 of June 25, 1969, and as such qualifies for franking privileges, in accordance with Section 17 of the Post Office Act.
5.	Generally, the mailing was directed to households and business establishments.


CANADIAN INVESTMENT IN MALAYSIA
Mr. Gauthier: Does Canada intend to invest $50 million in Malaysia and, if so (a) will this be a new initiative by the Bank of Canada (b) will it be taken from the Consolidated Fund, and (i) at what rate (ii) for how many years?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government of Canada has offered the government of Malaysia a development loan of up to $50 million which would be used to purchase in Canada goods and services required for the Temengor hydroelectric project. The project consists of a 260 megawatt dam on the Perak River in northwest Malaysia. The loan would bear a 3% rate of interest per annum and would include a 7 year grace period with repayment to be spread over a period of 30 years. This is not an initiative of the Bank of Canada as the loan would be taken from the normal Canadian International Development Agency loan fund i.e. vote L25.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-RETENTION OF PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM
Mr. Sulatycky: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works retained or employed from time-to-time, from outside

June 22, 1970
Questions
its own permanent employees, any public relations firm or person, or any advertising firm or person for any purpose in the past five years and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	What are the names of such firms or persons so employed in the past two years?
3.	What was the total expenditure made for the services of such persons or firms in each of the past five years?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programs are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-RETENTION OF PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS
Mr. Sulatycky: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture retained or employed from time-to-time, from outside its own permanent employees, any public relations firm or person, or any advertising firm or person for any purpose in the past five years and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	What are the names of such firms or persons SO employed in the past two years?
3.	What was the total expenditure made for the service of such persons or firms in each of the past five years?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The Department of Agriculture has contracted advertising agencies to carry out campaigns in each of the past five fiscal years. Campaigns were (a) 1965-66 to 1969-70-information on dairy policy, (b) 1967-68-information on programs and services, (crop insurance, farm credit, livestock improvement, animal health, meat inspection and in Western Canada only, Prairie Farm Rehabilitation and Prairie Farm Assistance Administrations, and the Board of Grain Commissioners), (c) 1967-68 to 1969-70-Career opportunities in agriculture placed in a special annual edition of a national publication, (d) 1968-69-information on grading and inspection of Canada agriculture products, (e) 1968-69 and 1969-70-to encourage save and effective use of pesticides.
2.	Tandy Advertising Company Limited, Toronto.
3.	(a) 1965-66, $20,609; (b) 1966-67, $69,380; (c) 1967-68, $129,717; (d) 1968-69, $184,539; (e) 1969-70, $72,215.


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-USE OF COMPUTER
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have the use of a computer In its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Yes the Department utilizes computer facilities provided by computer service bureaus on a rental basis, as required.
2.	The computers used by the Department as managed by the cumputer services bureaus and hence their total usage is not known to the Department.
3.	It is planned to utilize the equivalent of approximately 100 hours of large scale computer time in the current year.
4.	Fiscal Year	Cost
1966-	1967
1967-	1968
1968-	1969
1969-	1970
Records
were not maintained $ 12,553.82 80,189.10 97,314.92 129,846.60
5.	Some 70 programs are in preparation for computer processing. These programs are intended to increase the efficiency of the Department by decreasing manual effort, or providing information previously not available or conducting research as necessary.


TREASURY BOARD-DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Treasury Board Department have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of fhe Treasury Board):: 1. Computer services have been utilized on a service contract basis since 1967.
2.	N/A.
3.	Estimated $150,000 for 1970-71.


REQUESTS FOR ASSISTANCE BY THE CANADIAN COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
Mr. Thomson (Batlleford-Kindersley): 1.	Has the government had requests from the Canadian Communications Industry for assistance
June 22, 1970

in development costs and, it so, in what fields or areas of interest were the requests made (a) computers (b) communications networks (c) data processing (d) telecommunications, etc.?
2.	If development aid is given, will it be restricted to specific Canadian companies or administered by universities?
3 In what fields or areas of interest in communications has development aid been given?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Yes. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce continuously receives requests from Canadian Communication equipment manufacturing firms for financial assistance under its development assistance programs PAIT (Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology) and DIP (Defence Industry Productivity Program). Requests are made in very many technological fields and typical of those under consideration at this time, are: (a) Computer Systems-computer terminals, video display systems, manufacturing process control and TV tape editing, (b) Communications networks-radio relay equipment, mobile radio equipment, broadcasting equipment and space satellite equipment, (c) Data processing- data logging equipment, telemetry and alarm activating systems and character recognition equipment, (d)	Telecommunications-teletypewriter equipment, paging receivers, broadband switching equipment and multiplex equipment.
2.	Development aid under PAIT and DIP is given to specific Canadian manufacturing companies.
3.	Development aid has been given in the past in almost all the technological areas outlined in part 1 and, in addition, for the development of: television monitoring equipment, information display equipment, earth terminals for satellite communications, digital to video conversion equipment, character display systems and telemetering systems.


PORTNEUF, QUEBEC-WHARF
Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the water depth at low tide at the end of the Portneuf wharf?
2.	When was the wharf built?
3.	Who was the contractor and what was the cost?
4.	To date, has the maintenance of the wharf involved major repairs and, if so, what was the total amount spent to date for such repairs?
5.	Is there a guard service for this wharf and, if so, what has been the annual cost of this service for the past five years?
Questions
6.	Must users of this wharf hold a docking permit and, if so, on what terms is such permit granted?
7.	What has been the total operating costs of this wharf for the past five years?
8.	What have been the revenues for the same period?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport as follows:
1.	33 feet.
2.	During the years 1956 and 1957.
3.	The contractor was Gulf Maritime Construction Ltd. The total cost of construction, including surveys, inspection and inspector services, was $1,171,800.
4.	In 1962-63 the cost of wharf improvements, including professional services, was $342,400. To date approximately $45,000. was spent for maintenance repairs, including surveys, inspections and inspector services.
5.	Yes, wharfinger, part-time, paid from annual wharf revenues collected as follows: 1965-66, $333.25; 1966-67, $221.22; 1967-68, $464.60; 1968-69, $260.46; 1969-70, $46.43.
6.	No.
7.	$1,325.96 (wharfinger commissions).
8.	Gross, $1,507.75; net, $181.79.


TREASURY BOARD-USE OF COMPUTER
Mr. Robinson: 1 Does the Treasury Board Department have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Treasury Board has contracts for the use through terminals of two computer service facilities. Since these computers allow concurrent use by several users at the same time, extent of use is not directly measurable except in cost terms.
2. The computer service facilities are accessible at varying times but never used 24 hours per day. The services are used when needed so that computer operations are only charged for when the services are being used.

June 22, 1970
Questions
3.	Utilization, as stated in (1) above, is measurable only in cost terms and the planned use in 1970-71 is expected to be about $150,000.
4.	1960-61 to 1966-67, Nil; 1967-68, $20,332.26; 1968-69, 17,289.71; 1969-70, 48,333.96.
5.	A set of about 25 programs is being prepared to process historical expenditure data and forecast expenditure data which will permit a more thorough analysis of the full implications of recommendations for resource allocation.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Transport have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the department?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. and 2. Yes
the Ministry of Transport has computer equipment as per the following schedule showing installation date and initial cost:
Location
Installation
Date
Cost
Ottawa Headquarters	IBM 360/50	1969	$312,000	per annum rentalAir Traffic Control	IBM 1800	1966	$ 54,000	per annum rentalTelecommunicat ions	SEL 810B	1969	$ 65,000 $140,000	initial purchase initial purchaseTelecommunicat ions	PDP9	1968	$ 5,000	initial purchaseMet Central Analysis	IBM 360/65	1967	$348,000	per annum rentalMarine Traffic Control	Honeywell 516	1969	$170,000	initial purchaseMet Climatology	IBM 360/30	1967	$132,000	per annum rentalSt. Lawrence Seaway	Burroughs 2500	1968	$108,000	per annum rentalAir Traffic Control	3 IBM 1800's	1970	$102,000	per annum rental(strip recorders) Met Research & Train.	Univac 9200	1969	$ 90,000	per annum rentalMet Instruments	PDP15	1970	$ 45,000	initial purchaseMet MiU Village	SDS 910	1965	$ 25,000	initial purchase3.	The 1970/71 data processing costs anticipated are $3,100,000.


DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS-DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Communications have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Yes. The Department of Communications was formed April 1, 1969 and has obtained some data processing equipment since that date. One of the organizations comprising the new Department of Communications was the Communications Research Centre at Shirley Bay, formerly of the Defence Research Board. The Communications Research Centre has had data processing equipment since 1963.

2.	Under the Defence Research Board, data processing and auxiliary equipment was purchased for the Communications Research Centre to the amount of $1,057,500 from 1963 to 1969 and by 1968 rentals reached an amount of $217,000 annually. Since the formation of the Department of Communications in 1969, data processing and auxiliary equipment has been purchased to an amount of $122,900 and annual rental of equipment has increased to $300,000.
3.	In the fiscal year 1970-71, data processing costs for purchase and rental of equipment and auxiliary items for the Department of Communications is expected to be $477,000.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Transport have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
June 22, 1970

3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. The
Ministry of Transport has the use of twelve computers in its operations. The average utilization is 77.5 per cent.
2.	Those computers working in a real time environment (i.e. Air and Marine Traffic Control) are programmed 24 hours per day. Those in a research and/or business environment are in various stages of utilization. Increasing development work will add to the present load and move these installations toward 24 hour per day utilization.
3.	The Ministry plans to fully utilize 100 per cent of available computer hours.
4.	Annual costs for computer services to the
Ministry for the years 1960-1970 follows: Prior to 1960-1962, No computing equipment installed; 1962-1963,	$850,000;	1963-1964,$910,000;	1964-1965,	$1,165,000;	1965-1966,
$1,438,000; 1966-1967, $1,700,000; 1967-1968, $1,951,300; 1968-1969, $2,730,800; 1969-1970, $2,932,000; 1970-1971, $3,100,000.
5.	The Ministry of Transport, in addition to the normal data processing requirements, has need of computers in the control of its day to day operations. Their use in the area of Air and Marine Traffic Control and in the simulation and forecasting of weather by the Meteorological Branch produces data and a response without which these operational branches would be unable to effectively perform their ongoing objectives. Currently, the computer effort of the Ministry of Transport is being directed to some 43 overall programs. In each area the computer support in intended to assist the performance of each individual Ministry of Transport branch in the attainment of its program objectives by providing quicker response and improved information flow such that both policy and operational management can react in a timely fashion.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Public Works have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so. for how long?
2 What was the initial cost of the equipment?
Questions
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	$215,000.


APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE HARRY WILLIAMS
Mr. Godin: 1.	What is the annual salary of the Hon. Judge Harry Williams?
2.	When was he appointed to the bench?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1. and 2. There is no federally appointed judge known by the name of Hon. Judge Harry Williams.


NATIONAL PARKS-COIN OPERATED PERMIT DISPENSING MACHINES
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many coin-operated permit dispensing machines have been placed in Canada's National Parks?
2.	Where are these machines located?
3.	What was the initial cost per unit?
4.	What was the total purchase price of the machines?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to put these machines into permanent use and, if not, for what reason?
6.	When will a decision be made concerning the permanent use of the permit dispensing machines?
7.	Who is the supplier and the manufacturer of the machines?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Five.
2.	Five campgrounds in Jasper National Park.
3.	$900.
4.	$4,500.
5.	These machines have been installed on a trial basis. If proven satisfactory, they will become permanently installations.
6.	Possibly in the fall of 1970.
7.	The supplier is: Kodiak Parking Services Ltd., Winnipeg, Mani.oba. The manufacturer is: Park-Ur-Self System, Inc., San Francisco, California, U.S.A.


CANADIAN NAVAL RESERVE-NEW UNIFORMS
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Are Canadian Naval Reserve unit personnel being issued with the new Canadian Forces uniform?

June 22, 1970
Questions
2.	If the answer to Part (1) is negative, are Canadian Naval Reserve personnel being asked if they wish to purchase Canadian Forces uniforms and, if so (a) on what basis (b) what percentage of total strength expressed a desire to purchase new uniforms?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. No, as
indicated in Hansard of October 22, 1969, page 11689, the issue of the new uniform to Reserve personnel will not commence until after completion of the Regular Force issue program.
2. No, however all officers and men of the Reserve Forces are authorized to wear the new Canadian Forces' uniform under current regulations. Those wishing to outfit themselves ahead of the issue program may do so but will not be reimbursed. None have been canvassed to express an opinion in regard to the purchase of new uniforms.


ALBERTA-ASSISTANCE TO INDIAN PEOPLE IN STAGING CENTENNIAL CELEBRATIONS
Mr. Sulatycky: Is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development contemplating a program of assistance to the Indian people of Southern Alberta in staging centennial celebrations marking the signing of Treaty No. 7?


Russell Clayton Honey: The Department has received a request for funds to enable a Committee of Indian people to hire Communication Workers whose purpose would be to organize Centennial Celebrations marking the signing of Treaty No. 7. The Chairman has been informed that the Department is not in a position to provide the funds they have requested for that specific purpose. The Department has however, provided Cultural Grants this year to three of the five Bands concerned. The total value of these Grants is $18,661 and they are for the purpose of promoting, for example, the annual "Indian Days" celebrations; the development of Indian dancing and language and providing native dress. In conversation with officials of the Department, members of the Committee have agreed to discuss their plans with Regional and District Officers to see how Departmental projects and expenditures planned for the next few years might be administered so that they would fit into their plans.
[Mr. MacLean.l


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?
Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic
Expansion): 1. Yes, three years.
2.	$405,000.
3.	$750,000.


DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL-USE OF COMPUTER
Mr. Robinson: 1 Does the Department of the Solicitor General have the use of a computer in its operations and, if so, to what extent is it utilized?
2.	Is the computer programmed 24 hours per day and, if not, for what reason?
3.	What is the number of hours planned for utilization of the computer?
4.	What has been the annual cost of computer services for each year I960 to 1970 inclusive?
5.	How many programmes are in preparation for the computer at the present time and how will each affect the efficiency of the Department?


John Napier Turner: 1. The Department of the Solicitor General does not have the exclusive use of a computer in its operations; computer services being obtained as required from the Computer Services Bureau of the Department of Supply and Services.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	1960/61 to 1967/68, Nil; 1968/69, $8,496.78; 1969/70, $78,266.73.
5.	Five programs are being used in the development and testing of techniques in financial and personnel accounting and records; and for inmate and police information records.


DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL-DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of the Solicitor General have data processing equipment (automatic) and, if so, for how long?
2.	What was the initial cost of the equipment?
3.	What yearly costs are anticipated for data processing in the Department?
June 22, 1970


John Napier Turner: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Anticipated future costs not yet worked out.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BORROWINGS DURING SECOND WORLD WAR
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What was the total amount of money borrowed by the federal government during the Second World War?
2.	What was the amount of federal government bonds bought by (a) individuals (b) business firms (c) banks (d) the Bank of Canada?
3.	What amounts have been repaid to date?
4.	What amounts are still outstanding?
5.	What amount is still owing to (a) individuals (b) business firms (c) banks (d) the Bank of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Increase in Government of Canada direct and guaranteed debt outstanding between December 31, 1939 and December 31, 1945 amounted to $12,889 million.
2.	(a) $5,163 million (resident individuals); (b) $2,822 million; (c) $2,557 million; (d) $1,613 million. All non-resident and other governments net purchases amounted to $735 million.
3,	4 and 5. With the exception of a very small amount that is outstanding because they have not been redeemed by holders, all bonds issued during this period have matured and been repaid. Any refunding of maturing issues can have the effect of changing both the government obligation and the holders of those obligations. The Conversion loans currently outstanding in the amount of $3,060 million can be directly attributed to debt incurred during the war.


UNCOLLECTIBLE STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many student loans have been returned to the federal government from chartered banks as uncollectable for each year from the Inception of the Canada Student Loans Plan?
2.	For what amounts are these loans?
3.	For what reasons were they written off as uncollectable?
4.	What amount was collected by professional collection agencies?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. Number and value of claims sub-
Questions
mitted by chartered banks in respect of loans considered by them as uncollectable.
Loan Year	Number	Value1964/65	1	$	5001965/66	43	27,4411966/67	221	164,8631967/68	534	303,9201968/69	660	517,8421969/70 to May 31st	1,300	1,577,966Total	2,759	$	2,592,5323.	Claims under the guarantee are submitted by the Chartered banks in the following circumstances:	(a) Death of borrower,
15 per cent of claims; (b) Borrower cannot be located, 70 per cent of claims; (c) Borrower is in prison or medically unfit to work or unemployed, 10 per cent of claims; (d) Borrower refuses to cooperate with lender, 5 per cent of claims. Claims under (a) above are uncollectable. Claims under (b) and (d) above are now passed to a collection agency for collection action. Claims under (c) above are reviewed by the Guaranteed Loans Administration on a regular basis until the borrower is employed and able to commence repayment.
4.	The services of a professional collection agency were engaged in July 1968 and to May 31, 1970, collections on accounts passed to them have amounted to $137,319.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many loans and/or gifts has Canada made to foreign countries during each year 1950 to 1970?
2.	What is the amount of each such loan?
3.	How was each to be utilized?
4.	What percentage of gross national product is the total per year?
Return tabled.


POLLUTION-FEDERAL EXPENDITURES 1959-60, 1969-70
Mr. Aiken: 1.	What expenditures have been made by the Federal Treasury in each fiscal year 1959-60 through 1969-70 for support of pollution abatement programs?
2.	What were these programs?
3.	In each of these fiscal years, what amount was expended on pollution research programs?

June 22, 1970
Questions
4.	What departments of the federal government were involved?
5.	In each of these fiscal years (a) what sums have been granted to the provinces and municipalities in aid of pollution abatement (b) which provinces received such aid (c) what were the names and locations of the projects?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS HIRED BY GOVERNMENT TO PRODUCE INFORMATION ON GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What public relations firms or economic or social research organizations have (a) been commissioned by government departments, agencies or Crown corporations (b) been hired or given contracts to produce pamphlets, brochures, economic surveys, etc., for educating or explaining government policies to the public?
2.	By what government department or agency were they hired?
3.	What specific task were they given to do?
4.	How much money were they paid?
5.	Was the choice of the firm concerned arrived at by asking for tenders and, if not, how was the choice made?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO SHARED-COST PROGRAMS WITH QUEBEC
Mr. Beaudoin: 1. For each fiscal year since March 31, 1966, what was the total contribution of the Canadian Government to shared-cost programs with the Government of Quebec or any other party in the constituency of Richmond indicating the percentage and amount provided by each contributor?
2 For the same years, how much was applied to each of the following programs or projects in the constituency of Richmond (a) Old Age Security (b) Blind Persons Allowance (c) Disabled Persons Allowances (d) Unemployment Assistance (e) Health Grants (f) general contributions for hospital construction (g) Hospital Insurance (h) Occupational Training Agreement (i) post-secondary school education grants (j) rehabilitation of disabled persons (k) Civil Defence (1) Winter Works Program (m) health program (n) training for new Canadians (o) crop insurance (p) ARDA (q) Medical Research Fund (r) 4-H clubs (s) tourist information (t) youth travel programs (u) Mothers Allowances?
3.	For each year referred to in Part 1, what was the federal government's contribution to those programs in which it was the sole contributor, indicating the exact purpose for which these funds were used?
Return tabled.


FINANCIAL DETAILS, POLYMER CORPORATION, 1967, 1968 AND 1969
Mr. Fortin: 1. With respect to Polymer Corporation Limited in each year 1967, 1968 and 1969, what was (a)

the ratio on working capital and is this ratio considered satisfactory (b) the ratio of liquidity and is this ratio considered satisfactory (c) the net tangible assets per $1000 (bonds) and is this situation considered satisfactory (d) the net tangible assets per share (e) the percentage of total capitalization contributed by bond-holders (f) the percentage of total capitalization owned by shareholders (g) the interest cover and is this cover considered satisfactory (h) the cash flow (i) the percentage of net profits distributed to shareholders (j) the efficiency or earnings ratio and is this ratio considered satisfactory (k) the return on capital invested and is this return considered satisfactory (1) the return on shareholders' investment and is this return considered satisfactory (m) the profit per ordinary share and is this profit considered satisfactory (n) the ratio of inventory turnover and is this ratio considered satisfactory?
2.	What are Polymer's plans with respect to diversification of its activities?
3.	Does Polymer intend to set up production units in Quebec and. if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


UNSOLICITED MATERIAL RECEIVED BY NEWSPAPERS FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 1968 AND 1969
Mr. Whiting: 1.	How many newspapers across Canada, both weeklies and dailies, received unsolicited material such as newsletters, press releases, books and other documents, from various government departments during the years 1968 and 1969?
2.	What were the actual mailing costs involved?
3.	How much did it cost the respective departments to produce this material in the years 1968 and 1969?
4.	How much of a saving could be realized by these departments, apart from mailing costs, if these unsolicited services to newspapers were cancelled?
Return tabled.


UNIVERSITY STUDENTS-SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many applications has the federal government received from university students seeking summer employment, to date?
2.	How many university students have been hired by the federal government for summer employment?
3.	Has the federal government proceeded with any special programs which will provide university students in Canada with summer employment, aside from employment opportunities in the federal government?
Return tabled.


INCENTIVE GRANTS TO FAIREY COMPANY LIMITED
Mr. Broadbenl: 1. For each year 1948 to 1969, what federal government subsidies, grants or incentives were awarded to the Fairey Company Limited of Halifax?
June 22, 1970

Questions



INCENTIVE GRANTS

[Stage Direction]
2.	For each year 1948 to 1969, what federal government contracts were awarded to the Fairey Company Limited of Halifax?
3.	For the same period, can the Government of Canada indicate the extent of provincial government financial assistance to the Fairey Company of Canada Limited?
Return tabled.

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is the Government of Canada carrying out any research into the alternative uses for wheat and, if so, what projects are underway and how much money is being expended on them?
2.	Is any similar research being carried out by private agencies in Canada?
Return tabled.



OTTAWA, ONTARIO-REFURNISHING OF JACKSON BUILDING

Mr. Coates: 1.	When the Jackson Building was renovated, were new furnishings in the form of office equipment and carpeting provided?
2.	If contracts were awarded for the refurnishing of this building, what was the amount of the contract or contracts awarded and the names of the firm or firms?
3.	If the Jackson Building was refurnished (a) how was the furniture formerly used in the building disposed of (b) was any of this furniture destroyed and, if so, for what reason?
Return tabled.



INCENTIVE GRANTS

Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant to the following firms and, if so, what is the amount of each grant (a) Bell Aerospace Canada for plants at Dartmouth and Halifax airport (b) Laiterie Laval Limitee, Quebec City (c) Technico Inc., Drummondville, Quebec (d) Auto-neige Toundra Inc., Duvernay, Quebec (e) Newell Vegetable Co-op Ltd., Brooks, Alberta (f) Fristamat Limited, Canning, N.S. (g) Minas Basin Pulp and Power Company Limited, Hantsport, N.S. (h) St. Lawrence Manufacturing Company Ltd., Giffard, Quebec (i) Karnes Kitchens Ltd., Woodstock, N.B. (j) Fishery Products Limited, St. John's Newfoundland (k) J. H. Normick Lt6e, La Sarre, Quebec?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of each firm and what is the address of each?
3.	To what extent is each company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership of each company?
Return tabled.

Question No. 1,768-Mr. Burton:
1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the Regional Development Incentives Act authorized or provided an incentive grant to the following firms and, if so, what is the amount of each grant (a) Vauxhall Foods Limited, Vauxhall, Alberta (b) Leeds Candy Corporation, Granby, Quebec (c) Lakeland Dairies Limited, Selkirk, Manitoba (d) Grand Falls Industries Limited, Grand Falls, N.B. (e) Countryside Farms Ltd., Ste. Anne, Manitoba (f) La Compagnie Eagle Lumber Ltee, L'Annonciation, Quebec (g) Les Cercueils South Durham Ltee, Drummondville, Quebec?
2.	Who are the directors and executive officers of each firm and what is the address of each?
3.	To what extent is each company non-resident or foreign-owned or controlled?
4.	What is the name and country of the known non-resident ownership of each company?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION RESEARCH STUDIES

Mr. Robinson: 1.	What research studies have been carried out by, or on behalf of the Department of Communications during each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
2.	What research studies are now being carried on and/or are contemplated during the next five years?
3.	What was the cost of each of the research studies completed in each year 1960 to 1969 inclusive?
4.	What is the estimated cost of each of the studies now in being or contemplated during the next five years?
Return tabled.



WHEAT SALES TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Mr. Rondeau: 1.	During the past five years, how many sales of wheat has Canada concluded with foreign countries?
2.	In each case and, chronologically, who were the buyers?
3.	What was the sale price on each transaction?
4.	In each case, what is the name of the company that negotiated the transaction on behalf of Canada and how much did it receive in brokerage fees?
5.	What is the aggregate amount of all such sales and the total sum paid in brokerage fees?
Return tabled.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to question No. 244, I wonder whether the government intends to provide any information regarding outside consultant study costs for various departments.

June 22, 1970
Motions to Adjourn


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will make a further inquiry in this regard. It may well be that additional information may be secured by Friday and this, among other questions, may be answered by special agreement of the House on Friday.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: I wonder if the house leader would inform me as to when I might expect an answer to question No. 163. Eight months even for a Liberal government, seems a long time to answer a question. I was assured I would have the answer before the end of the session. Is that correct?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could take this occasion, the first since the hon. member has been declared a candidate for the leadership of his party, to welcome him in that capacity.
My information is that the list of firms is ready. However, statistical data on these firms has not yet been obtained from DBS. I hope that before much longer in his campaign we may have the answer for him.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader if the government intends to answer all the questions on the Order Paper for which statistical data are available, before the end of the session? I ask this in view of the fact that there are questions on the Order Paper under my name for which the information, I understand, is now available? Will these questions be answered before the end of the session?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will have specific consultations with the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker. We will certainly make every effort to answer all the questions for which information has come to hand by next Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 BROADCASTING ISSUANCE OF LICENCES TO TELEMEDIA

Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I move the adjournment of the House to discuss a specific, important and urgent matter.

This specific and urgent matter is the decision of the CRTC to issue a great number of radio and television broadcasting licences to Telemedia under circumstances and for considerations which, as admitted by the CRTC itself, are absolutely inconsistent, in addition to the concentration problems involved.
The urgency arises from the impending adjournment of this part of the session and from the 60-day delay allowed the governor in council to rescind that CRTC decision. Besides, my request is seconded by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Matane filed the notice provided for in Standing Order 26, which has given me the opportunity to take the request into consideration.
Hon. members will readily admit that the problem raised by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) is one of real importance and general interest. It also has an aspect of urgency since the House will probably recess very shortly.
However, does this justify adjourning today's proceedings in order to study the matter brought up by the hon. member? It is questionable.
May I suggest to hon. members that the decisions taken by commissions while carrying out their normal functions should not constitute matters for urgent discussions. Even under the circumstances which seem to cause the hon. member some concern, it would seem to me difficult to justify the adjournment of our proceedings to allow interested members to express their views. I would point out to the House that if the CRTC decision was only made public recently, the problem itself has been discussed and commented, even in a controversial manner for several months, so that hon. members have had many occasions to express their views and present arguments for and against the project in question.
Under the circumstances, I must decide that the hon. member's motion cannot be put today.



RELEASE OF LE DAIN COMMISSION REPORT-NEED FOR CLARIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon.
June 22, 1970	COMMONS
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the release on Friday of the Le Dain Commission's interim report on the non-medical use of drugs, the apparent contradictions in statements by cabinet ministers, and the urgent need for clear and explicit government policy in order to avoid immediately a major crisis in Canadian courts and in every major city in Canada this summer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given me the required notice of his intention to request leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the matter stated by him. In the interim, I have given very serious consideration to the several aspects of the question raised for debate.
It does seem to me that the matter raised by the hon. member is important and of wide and current interest, but I must concern myself with the question as to whether his proposal meets with the requirements of Standing Order 26. Essentially, I believe that the matter referred to by the hon. member can be resolved only by legislation. It might be that a debate at this time could do much to develop and clarify the thinking of hon. members in regard to a possible alteration of the criminal law of the country, but it seems to me that since the question is a matter of legislation rather than one which relates to the administration of government, it fails to qualify under the terms of Standing Order 26.
On the other hand if the hon. member's request is directed primarily to the apparent contradictions in statements by ministers of the Crown, I suggest that other means and methods may be used, which are available to hon. members, for the purpose of obtaining a clarification of such statements. For the reasons stated, I must say with regret that the hon. member's proposed motion should not be placed before the House at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of
DEBATES	8423
Inquiries of the Ministry what, it is now clear, was a non-statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the House on Friday last. At that time the minister simply said that the government was giving consideration to acting upon one recommendation of the LeDain Commission, that is not to legalize the possession of marijuana but to lighten the penalty.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether we can expect an early decision with regard to this matter. I ask this in the hope that the enthusiasm of the minister outside the House may at least result in prophecy, although it was not strictly accurate on that occasion.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I take note that the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking for his party, says that the minister's enthusiasm should result in prophecy. As far as we are concerned, our position was stated in the House on Friday and it remains the same.


An hon. Member:: There were two positions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing ambiguous about my position in speaking for the party on Friday and I hoped it would encourage the Prime Minister to make a statement. In view of the doubt that now exists with regard to what decision the government will reach, and the vast number of Canadians who are concerned and who will be affected by the eventual decision, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give the House the assurance that he will make an early announcement.
I remind him, sir, that he kept this report within the circle of the government for several weeks so that he could deal with this sort of situation. I ask him if he will not give the House the assurance of a very early statement in order to remove the confusion and concern that is bound to exist in the country in the light of the non-statement made by the Minister of Health and Welfare in the House on Friday last.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the indignation of the Leader of the Opposition moves me. I must say that making a statement would not change the law, and he must know this. Our statement was made on Friday and it remains the same. The minister explained, as he entered the House, that it remained the same. That was our position. The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that by making any kind of statement we could not change the law as it stands. The Minister of Justice

June 22. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry explained thoroughly in the House how this law has, in fact, been interpreted and applied for some time past. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that through some kind of unanimous agreement of all members of the House we could change the law very quickly in some manner that he would suggest, I am sure the House, even our side, would consider it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think that is something which the Prime Minister might have explored instead of the farcical procedure which he has followed.


An hon. Member:: Not a break in the cloud.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the President of the Association of Police Chiefs and the comment by an unnamed Supreme Court judge in at least one Toronto newspaper indicating a good deal of hostility to the recommendations of the LeDain Commission, would the government make clear to Crown prosecutors who are implementing government policy what the government's desires are with reference to people who will be arrested and prosecuted in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that statement, so I do not know if it refers to all the drugs considered by the LeDain Commission. If the statement relates to marijuana, I repeat that the Minister of Justice outlined in the House on Friday the way in which the law was interpreted by the courts, and in fact it appears that it has been interpreted by the courts in the way that the LeDain Commission says it should.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a question for the right hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the report of a telegram sent by the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario to the Civil Service Association of that province that the government of Ontario does not intend to apply the 6 per cent guideline to negotiations with provincial civil servants, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is stiE the government's intention to insist on such guidelines for the federal public service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that report. I will discuss it with the Minister of Finance. I understand that when the Minister of Finance met with the provincial treasurers and ministers of finance in Winnipeg some weeks ago, the provinces did agree to abide by the guidelines. If there is a contradiction here I will try to see which of the provincial ministers is stating government poEcy.



INFLATION-SUGGESTED MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER AND HEADS OF BANKS AND OTHER CORPORATIONS

David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Pursuing that for a moment, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House if it is his intention to meet publicly with the heads of banks and of other corporations to urge them to reduce their charges and prices because, in the language he used to autoworkers in Talbotville, their high charges and prices have screwed certain sections of the Canadian people.


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


David Lewis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the House and to you, sir, that the question is important and that the Prime Minister's behaviour is important. When a millionaire aristocrat goes to speak to autoworkers and talks down to them-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is hardly a point of order. The hon. member has asked his question. Certainly, it is not a point of order.


David Lewis: A further point of order, Mr. Speaker. No one respects your position, Mr. Speaker, more than I, but I suggest to you that as a member I have a right to insist that I complete my point of order before you set me down. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the language the Prime Minister used in speaking to workers in a plant is good enough for them it is good enough, to be used in a question asked of the Prime Minister in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has added three or four words, but they do not add anything procedurally to what he started to say. It is clearly not a point of order, and I have to rule along those lines.
June 22, 1970



INFLATION-SUGGESTED APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES POLICY TO PROPOSED AIR CANADA FARE INCREASE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that great defender of the consumer, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whether he intends to apply the guidelines policy to Air Canada which, according to reports, is proposing to increase air fares by 10 per cent.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There have been discussions between Air Canada and the Prices and Incomes Commission, Mr. Speaker. When action is taken there will undoutedly be a statement from the commission.



INFLATION-JOINT STUDY OF EFFECTIVE PRICE CONTROLS

Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell the House whether he intends to propose, in co-operation with the Prices and Incomes Commission, some effective form of price control?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister made it clear a number of times that in so far as that question is concerned, all options are open.



PROPOSED SIX PER CENT WAGE GUIDELINE- SUGGESTED CORRECTION OF HOURLY RATE FIGURES USED BY PRIME MINISTER

David Orlikow: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would take an opportunity to check the figures which he used in speeches at the weekend, Mr. Speaker. The latest Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures for wages of industrial workers show them to be 30 cents an hour higher than the figure the Prime Minister quoted, whilst the figures for postal workers are in fact 30 cents lower. I wonder if the Prime Minister would check these figures.



POST OFFICE


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: should like to direct a question to the right
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. Prime Minister about negotiations with postal workers and the continuing rotating strikes. Can the Prime Minister advise if the Treasury Board spokesman representing the government in the negotiations is now prepared to go as far as Judge Lippe did in his recommendations on the matter of wages some time ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not conversant with the latest details of the negotiations, and I cannot say what exact offers have been made by both sides, but there has been no blanket authorization of that kind given to Treasury Board by the government.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sf. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of his statement to the House on Friday that the white paper on social security would be tabled before the end of the present session, is it still the minister's intention to introduce interim increases for old age pensioners before the tabling of the white paper?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is the government considering it?


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can we take it from the minister's answer that his recommendation to cabinet that interim increases be granted to old age pensioners has been turned down by his colleagues?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I trust that the hon. member's supplementary question is supplementary to the first question asked, which was in order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister something he did not make clear in his answer. Will the white paper be tabled before the House adjourns?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I indicated on Friday to the hon. member that I expected, in all probability, the white paper would be

June 22, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry tabled prior to the end of the present session, and I explained to him that did not necessarily mean prior to the recess.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Ottawa West in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. My question has to do with the report of the committee which he tabled a few minutes ago. Will the hon. member endeavour to ascertain through the usual channels whether hon. members of the House would be willing to concur in this report, without debate, if a motion for concurrence were moved tomorrow? I ask this question, believing he will find that to be the case.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have filed with the Clerk of the House the necessary notice for concurrence. I believe, according to the rules, that 48 hours are required which would mean that Thursday would be the earliest day on which concurrence would be possible. Whether it will be possible to do so on that day is a matter for the House.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of a question that my colleague for St. John's East directed to the Minister of Economic Expansion on Thursday last. The hon. member asked a question about the Regional Development Incentives Act, which has now been in operation for one year, and referred to the failure of the act in the two provinces that need it most, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. I should like to ask the minister why, since close to $25 million has been spent in the province of Quebec, close to $5 million in the province of New Brunswick and about half a million dollars in the province of Saskatchewan, there is discrimination with regard to pelletizing plants, or are we to understand-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Certainly the question as asked is not in order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I re-word my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the House will allow the hon. member to rephrase his question. No doubt he realizes that, since it was asked in an argumentative form, it was not acceptable. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase his question.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister why grants have been given for pelletizing plants in the province of Quebec while applications for grants for such plants in the province of Saskatchewan were rejected?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept-


Jean Marchand: I do not accept the statement that has been made, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is that I did not hear the minister's first reply. He spoke in French and I did not have my earphone on. Subsequently he leaned across and said, "That is mean." Regardless of what he said, if my statement is incorrect I wish the minister would get up and correct me. I understand that my information is correct, and I do not see how I could have been mean. I should like to hear the minister's reply.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he has every right to ask questions under our rules, but he cannot insist on a reply. My understanding of the minister's reply was that he did not accept the premise on which the question was based, and it then becomes a question of debate as to what the situation is.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I thoroughly understand this, Mr. Speaker, but did the minister say he did not accept my statement or the premise of my statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I certainly do not think we should become involved in debate. My understanding is that the minister said, as ministers will sometimes say, that he did not accept the premise for the question.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious question so far as I am concerned. The minister is either doubting my word, or the information I have is correct. I should like the minister to clarify why he said I was mean.
June 22, 1S70


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this is strictly a question of debate between the minister and the hon. member. I do not think it is a legitimate question of privilege.


Jean Marchand: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on a question of privilege.


Jean Marchand: It is not that I do not want to answer the question, Mr. Speaker, but this is a rather complex case and I cannot answer with a yes or a no, nor can I give a brief reply.
So, should the hon. member like to receive some information, I shall be happy to supply it. However, in my opinion, his statement is not accurate.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, will the minister make a statement on motions in regard to this question so that the whole matter can be clarified?



IMPORTATION OF MILK POWDER

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which relates to a question I addressed to the minister about two weeks ago, and also to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, concerning the importation of milk powder into Canada from Ireland and New Zealand. At that time the minister indicated that he and his colleague would look into the question and reply at a later date. I was wondering if the Minister of Agriculture is now in a position to inform the House as to the extent of the importation of milk powder into Canada from foreign sources?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had this investigated. I am not able to give the hon. member, at this stage in our proceedings, exact amounts as we know them. However, there is one thing I should like to clarify. I said I did not know whether any of the milk powder that had been exported from Canada was coming back into the country. I can now say categori-
Inquiries of the Ministry cally that no Canadian skim milk powder subsidized for export has been re-imported into Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 interrupt the hon. member for Oxford because I believe the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is rising on a question of privilege.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to my original question to the Minister of Agriculture concerning the importation of milk powder. Would the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, pursue their investigations into this matter of the importation of milk powder, because I have here, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that a long standing practice prohibits him from bringing into the House or using in the House exhibits which may be used in courts of law. This practice has been ruled out of order in many instances, and the hon. member cannot pursue his question with the use of exhibits.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was only trying to make sure that I was accurately reading what is on the label of the container. Perhaps Your Honour will permit me to paraphrase what it says. The label on the container shows that this is a product of the Borden Company. It is milk powder imported from Ireland, and is a fairly large quantity. In view of that, I was wondering if the minister would pursue and use-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was just finishing my question. I was asking if the minister could pursue his studies, and if he would use the powers under the Export and Import Permits Act to stop the importation of milk powder into this country.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think I can clear this up. There are three principal classes of milk powder. There is dry skim milk powder, there is dry buttermilk powder and there is whole milk powder. Dry skim milk powder has been under import controls, as I recall it, since 1958. Whole milk powder has not been

June 22, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry under import restriction at all and, indeed, is not subsidized in Canada. However, it there is any skim milk powder coming in in large quantities, as might be suggested by the label of the product in the hon. member's hand, I will be prepared to look into the matter. I think he must remember, however, that there are three distinct categories of milk powder.


Gerald William Baldwin: That sounds like a lot of bull.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the United States government informed the Canadian government of the deployment of global missiles with multiple re-entry warheads in North Dakota, close to the Canadian border? If so, what was the reaction of the Canadian government?
Hon Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there has been an official of the United States government in Canada within the last few days who has informed us about plans of the United States government but I do not think that this informa.ion goes further than ABM's. They have not asked for any reaction and we have not given any.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In asking my supplementary question, I wish to advise the minister that I am referring to MIRV's, multiple independent re-entry vehicles. In view of the current discussion of a possible strategic arms limitation agreement, and the fact that the deployment of MIRV's constitutes a new and dangerous escalation of the arms race, does the government intend to make any representations to the United States government on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have supported very strongly the strategic arms limitation talks that are taking place between the United States and the Soviet Union. We urge both sides to avoid deploying these missiles.


PROPOSED UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR TESTS BY U.S.-FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING RESULTS OF LAST TEST
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government made any recent representations to the government of the United States concerning

the proposed underground nuclear tests in the Aleutians? Is there anything to report to the House resulting from this possible dialogue?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are obtaining information regarding the results of the last test. We have been reviewing this information. It is my understanding that there is not likely to be a further underground test for approximately two years. We are considering first, whether, and second, when, we should make any further representations on this matter. I should clarify this point, Mr. Speaker. We are, of course, opposed to all forms of testing. The question that arises is whether there is any particular danger arising to Canada as a result of this particular kind of testing.


Mark Willson Rose: I have a supplementary to the previous exchange concerning the Aleutian nuclear tests. I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if Canada has initiated any independent investigation regarding the data or are we depending upon foreign or American information regarding the possible dangers of these tests?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member may recall that when the first test was made we had our own experts examine the possibilities of damage to Canada arising out of peculiar circumstances. It was on the basis of those findings that we made our representations to the United States. We would do exactly the same again.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he or the National Capital Commission have secured the approval of the appropriate civic authorities in Ottawa with regard to the proposed new bridge across the Ottawa River?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there have been several discussions between the municipal authorities and those of Ontario. The final decision remains clearly with the federal government since it is assuming the total cost of building the bridge.
June 22, 1970	COMMONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Is it the intention of the minister and the government to proceed with the bridge, as announced, without the approval of the appropriate authorities in the city of Ottawa?


Jean Marchand: The cabinet has approved the building of the bridge, Mr. Speaker, and as a member of the cabinet, I intend to carry out its decisions.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. I understood the minister to say that because the federal government would pay for the construction of the bridge, it alone would make the determination. I ask the minister, who will pay for the approaches at both ends, of the bridge and whether the authorities that have to pay those costs should be consulted?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I said a moment ago that there had been consultations with the authorities. Even though the consultation proceedings may not have been as extensive as they should have been, there were nevertheless consultations. The Ontario government was aware of the decision, as well as the municipality of Ottawa.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary. I ask the Prime Minister whether this is his concept of federalism?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley West has a supplementary to the previous question.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Edmund Boyd Osler: My question is for the Prime Minister. Southeastern Manitoba has been subjected to almost continuous rainfall for many weeks. Farmers have been unable to work their land in any way. They are unable to seed or get their machinery out to cut hay in many cases. The result is that not only the farmers but the townspeople feel there is an impending disaster. I ask the Prime Minister if he can assure this House that measures will be taken to relieve this situation in the immediate future?
DEBATES	8429
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we do have a policy whereby the federal government assists provinces which meet with disasters of this kind. I thank the hon. member for bringing this to the attention of the government. I must add that because of our belief in federalism, we only act in cases like this when a request is received from the premier of the province. As far as I know, no such request has been received.


WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-ADDITIONAL MEASURES TO ACHIEVE GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of recent crop reports that, while wheat acreage has been reduced in western Canada, the acreage taken out of wheat has been transferred to rapeseed, flax, barley and other crops and the summer-fallow has increased by only 6 per cent, will the minister make a statement on motions before the summer recess indicating what additional measures will be taken-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. I do not think that is a supplementary. At the same time, I recognize the importance of the matter. The question having been asked, for the purpose of saving time the minister might like to reply and indicate to the House whether a statement will be made.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Unfortunately, it will be difficult for the minister to do that because I had not put my question. Can the minister inform the House what additional measures will be taken to achieve the government's earlier stated policy of providing $140 million in cash to the farmers under the Lift program?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, that was not the stated government policy. If the farmers participated to the full extent of 22 million acres, that would be the maximum amount. However, the program that we announced some weeks ago has been available to all farmers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the minister. I understood the question to be whether a statement would be made. Again I say that is not a supplementary question.

June 22. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry FLOODS


NEW BRUNSWICK-GRANT TO ASSIST IN PAYMENT OF DAMAGE
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I have given notice of the question. Will the minister advise if a grant has been authorized and made by the federal government to the province of New Brunswick to assist those who suffered heavy financial losses due to floods in that province in February?


Jean Marchand: I thank the hon.
member for having given me notice, however I am not aware of it. I think the Treasury Board has jurisdiction over this. I can inquire and make a report or ask the Treasury Board to make a report to the hon. member.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. An article datelined Montreal appeared recently in the Globe and Mail concerning the arrest of two persons for selling counterfeit pills. Reference was made to the fact that over 900,000 of these pills came from Ontario. In view of the fact that this is the kind of operation that could have underworld backing, does the government know in which Ontario plant these alleged counterfeit pills were made?


John Carr Munro: It is my understanding that this matter is presently before the courts, and I shall await the outcome before making any comment.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Have officials or members of the government been in communication with the government of Saskatchewan with regard to the suggested establishment of compulsory labour courts to enforce the 6 per cent guideline and, if so, has the government encouraged the idea?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I believe I answered that question on Thursday, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: The
minister says he answered the question on Thursday. I do not believe he did so very clearly. May I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? In the light of recent statements by the government about Canadian unions, does the right hon. gentleman intend to protest the proposition of President Nixon that you cannot preserve the dollar by passing the buck?


WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM- COMPENSATION FOR ELEVATOR AGENTS FOR TIME SPENT FILLING OUT FORMS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Does the government intend to compensate elevator agents who spend much time completing the forms which farmers must fill out in their applications under the Lift program, bearing in mind that this work sometimes interferes with the loading and acceptance of grain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: These people are the employees of the elevator companies. In many instances in the past, after programs have been announced by the government, such as the arrangement for cash advances on farm-stored grain, the companies have assisted farmers in preparing their forms.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
James Aloysius McGrath: My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Does the minister intend to bring in a measure to change the Industrial Incentives Act, bearing in mind the wide disparity between grants made in the various provinces of Canada, especially affecting some of the more depressed provinces?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the difference is much smaller than the hon. member would seem to indicate, considering the population, and it is not our intention to
June 22, 1970

change anything. The firms themselves, and not the government, decide where they will settle. If the scheme does not work properly after a certain period of time, it might be in order to change it.


REQUESTED CHANGE IN DEFINITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO INCLUDE FISHING COMMUNITIES
John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to redefine the definition of infrastructure in the special areas legislation so as to include viable fishing communities? Will a statement be made on a new program in the near future?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if
special areas are meant here, they are already included in the scheme and there is therefore no need to change it. We may do it provided the area is a special one. I cannot see what changes could be brought to the program at this time.


John Howard Lundrigan: My supplementary is
directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the definition of infrastructure in the special areas legislation does not cover fishing communities, may I ask whether he is planning to bring in a new program of legislation to include viable fishing areas so that they can take advantage of the grants being made by his department?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if a fishing community is designed in a "special area", we have the right to build all the infrastructures provided by the act. All we need to know is whether or not the community is within the "special area".


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: When answering a question asked by my hon. friend from St. John's East, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion indicated that his department's incentives program was not based in any way on population. I would ask him whether this is not apparent from the fact that Quebec has already received over 50 per cent of the grants?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald MacInnis: I rise to make an apology to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who has indicated to me that I quoted him as saying exactly the opposite of what he did say. In making this apology, I would ask him to consider the fact that Quebec still received more than 50 per cent of the grants.


FAIREY AVIATION-STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darlmouih-Halifax
East): I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not take my question as contrary to the indication given in your comment of a few moments ago, but I wanted to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether his department is presently negotiating with any firms for the rehabilitation or retaining of the maintenance and overhaul facilities at Dartmouth.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the last time I received a report on this matter, negotiations were being conducted, but in order that the hon. member will not be misled, I shall inquire and find out where the negotiations stand and report to him very soon.


CRIMINAL CODE
Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Canadian Psychiatric Association has declared that abortion should be removed from the Criminal Code and left, like any other medical matter, to the discretion of the patient and her doc'or, and in view of the fact that nearly 200 doctors in Montreal have called publicly for the repeal of the present abor'ion legislation, will the minister take early steps to remove abortion from the provisions of the Criminal Code?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. lady is repeaUng a question which has already been asked, and that-


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will allow me to take a stand which was taken by some of her hon. friends earlier, and allow

June 22, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry me to finish my point of order. It seems to me that the question has already been asked. As to the argument which the hon. lady puts forward, I doubt whether it is in accordance with the practice of the House to put to the ministry the same question day after day. This having been said, rather than listen to a point of order or a question of privilege, the minister might like to reply.


Donald MacInnis: The minister does not seem to want to reply? Does he wish to reply?


John Napier Turner: have noted the contents of the question.


Donald MacInnis: May I raise a point of order? My point of order, with great deference, is that I have not been asking the same question based on the same material day after day.


Mr. Speaker:: I have allowed the question, so no point of order can arise.


Donald MacInnis: This is my point of order. I waited for you to finish yours, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that I have two brand new pieces of evidence here which have not been mentioned before.


Mr. Speaker:: The Speaker has the last word, and I say that is not a point of order. I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate wishes to ask a supplementary to a previous question.


NATIONAL HOLIDAYS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will attend the St. John the Baptist Day celebrations in Montreal next Wednesday.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, next Wednesday I hope to be in a locality of the province of Quebec which will remain unnamed.


MANPOWER
Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower IMr. Speaker.]
and Immigration. Some two weeks ago the hon. gentleman announced in this chamber a program to hire approximately 6,000 more students. I should like to know how many students have already been hired, and the target date by which all the students will have been engaged.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hirings are to be made by individual departments which have been authorized to do so. Finances for doing so have been made available. I will check and make a report as to the number hired so far.


Jack Marshall: Can the minister indicate how the program announced by the Secretary of State under which students may receive summer instruction in one or other of the two official languages will alleviate the employment situation? Are these paid jobs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The program administered by the Department of the Secretary of State' will apply to 1,000 students who wish to study either French or English. Their accommodation and instruction will be paid for but they will not receive an educational allowance.


Gerald William Baldwin: They will be able to make their applications for jobs next year in both English and French.


PUBLIC SERVICE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My
question is for the Prime Minister. On June 11, I asked whether the government had yet made a decision on the report of the B and B Commission. At that time, the right hon. gentleman said the cabinet had considered the matter but had not reached a decision upon it. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister will be in a posilion to make an announcement to the House concerning the cabinet's decision before, hopefully, we rise within a week for the recess.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The position of the government will be made known within a very few days.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Prime Minister.
June 22, 1970

Following his accurate observation that inflation will seriously affect those on fixed pensions, and unorganized workers, does the right hon. gentleman intend to do something about people in those two categories by introducing improvement in pensions legislation and by encouraging provincial premiers to pass labour legislation permitting more of our workers to become members of a trade union?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that, as usual, the hon. member has missed the point. The best way to solve this problem, I believe, is to solve the problem of inflation, and in this regard I should like more co-operation from the members of that party.


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister wi hout Portfolio in charge of Information Canada, which has not been getting much attention these days. Is it the policy of his department, as evidenced in a recent communication, when requested for photos of prominent Canadian politicians to send pictures of himself and the Secretary of State only, leaving out the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?


Hon. Roberl Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I had not realized that my department was so efficient and had such good judgment.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question relates to an answer given today to a question of mine. I have just received a copy of the written answer. My question was asked on February 24 this year, and apart from the fact that it has taken almost four months to provide such a puny and insignificant answer, I find difficulty in understanding part of it.
Canada Elections Act
My question of privilege relates to the answer itself. The question I asked reads as follows:
During the time that the Honourable John Munro, Minister of National Health and Welfare, was in Prince Rupert, B.C. recently, what is the name of each group with whom he met-
The answer I received, which incidentally fails to explain why it took four months to answer the question is as follows:
I find it difficult to answer the hon. member's question because I did not meet with any group which had a name-
Then, the answer goes on to cover other factors that are not pertinent to that first part of the answer.
My question of privilege is; surely during the time the minister was in Prince Rupert and met with the executive of the Liberal party he came to the conclusion that that group had a name.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This appears to me to be a form of argument, not a question of privilege. I would not think that the matter should be pursued.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-2I5, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Faulkner in the Chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-215. When the committee rose at one o'clock subclause (3) of clause 14, and a motion to amend proposed thereto by the hon. member for Matane, was under discussion.
On clause 14, subclause (3)-Certain British subjects deemed electors.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned at one o'clock, I was regretting the absence from the chamber of the Minister without Portfolio from York-Scarborough. I am pleased to see him here now, smiling and in good health, and I wonder whether he might find it possible to advise the House and Canadians, before we take a vote on this question, of the current thinking of government with regard to citizenship requirements.

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
I will not attempt to bring the minister up to date on the debate that has taken place in the last hour or so, particularly the debate that took place the last time we were in committee on the bill, but it would be helpful if Canadians were able to understand the general direction of the thinking of the government in terms of future citizenship requirements, whether or not the present rules and regulations are going to be amended, or whether indeed any thought is being given to this question at all.
With regard to the amendment before the committee, I must say I am opposed to it, and I repeat the thoughts I started to express before lunch. If hon. members had taken the opportunity of reading the present Act, they might be able to comment on it a little more dispassionately. In this way, we might achieve a little more unity. I am sure that the very points that are giving rise to heat and to argument this afternoon were very much in the minds of the committee members when this legislation was before the committee.
The suggestion made by the hon. member for Ontario with respect to this particular provision has some merit, and the hon. member might wish to amend subclause (3) by substituting the words "All those persons" for the words "Every British subject".
The amendment before the committee seeks to achieve what perhaps most of us desire: it is the method of achieving that desire about which we seem to find some disagreement. Most hon. members are aware of the necessity to tidy up the approach taken by the standing committee to this particular problem, and the aspect of retroactivity leaves something to be desired as far as the phraseology is concerned.
The suggestion made by one of my friends to the left of me the other day has some merit, and if the members of the committee took cognizance of it we might be able quickly to dispose of the amendment now before the committee and to move on to a series of amendments that would allow the committee to put into legislative form many of the points that have been made in the debate this morning.
I contend that immigrants, particularly British subjects, should not simply be told once they have arrived in this country that we are sorry but the information they were given as to their right to vote is now incorrect, that we have decided to do something else. As members of the committee know, under the bill now before us a certain group

of individuals would be disenfranchised. Perhaps an amendment that would change the date of qualification from June 25, 1968 in subclause (3)(a) would correct the situation.
A number of suggestions have been made in respect of a time limit in this regard, and I have made my feelings known on this question. I should like to hear the views of the Minister without Portfolio. I urge the members of this committee not to support any amendment that would cause misunderstanding or hardship. It is quite evident, Mr. Chairman, that your committee was conscious of the necessity of putting this particular provision into some kind of order, particularly as far as those people who have chosen to come to Canada to live are concerned.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
As I indicated, I must oppose the amendment we are considering now. I hope my remarks were not out of order and that hon. members will look at one amendment which I am certain is formally before us and another one which, if it is not formally before us, was certainly given to us for our consideration over the weekend. It does have the effect of preserving the right of those people who may come between now and the date of the next election to vote at subsequent elections. As a result of the advice we have given them, I suspect in many instances we have held out this right to them as an inducement to come and settle in Canada.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East for his interest in the Canadian Citizenship Act. I have mentioned that the Canadian Citizenship Act is under review. In recent weeks, I have been visiting every province in Canada consulting with leaders of citizens' organizations and others who are interested in citizenship law. I am not yet ready to make proposals to my colleagues as to what changes there should be in the law, but I hope to be able to do so shortly. I hope that my colleagues will agree there should be a bill on this subject before too long. The Act is outmoded, and I think it requires a great deal of improvement.
As hon. members may know, I have been interested in the subject now under discussion for some years. It has always been my contention that there should be equality of treatment in the Elections Act, as in all our laws, and that there should be no discrimination between people residing in Canada on the basis of their national origin. I think that is
June 22, 1970

the spirit in which the present bill is presented to this House, and it is the spirit in which a number of amendments have been proposed.
I should only like to say that I hope there will be no amendments which in fact accentuate or extend the ethnic elitism which has been present in the law. I refer particularly to the suggestion of the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris, who is suggesting that we should indicate a superiority not only on the part of those who come from British countries but those who come from France. I reject that proposition completely on behalf of all those Canadians who have come here from other countries and who are equally as entitled to rights under our laws as those who come from countries of British or French connection.
Many members of this House will find, if they look back into their origins, that while their names may be Forrestall, Stanbury or Diefenbaker, their origins are very mixed. I doubt very much if a majority of the members of this House could claim to have some clear line of origin from France or Britain with no enrichment from other sources. I hope that the Elections Act will reflect this plurality of our population, and that it will be fair to all people who come to Canada and make their home here. I hope that will be the principle on which the new Canadian Citizenship Act will be based.


Mr. Perraull:: Mr. Chairman, I think we are all grateful to the minister for the eloquent statement he has just made. This has been a very useful debate. A number of ideas have been advanced which reflect the concern of ail parties in the House and their desire to make our system of elections as democratic and fair as it possibly can be. I must, however, oppose the amendment but not because I am unsympathetic to those who have spoken so eloquently in support of the view that the right to vote should be held exclusively by Canadian citizens. I know that in taking this position I will be in disagreement with some of my great and good friends on the government side, but I think we all hold our views sincerely.
It seems to me if the parliamentary system means anything at all, or if our system of law means anything at all, it means that we are very concerned about the rights of individuals. If the amendment before the committee is successful we would be depriving at least some people in Canada of the right to vote at 22478-43*
Canada Elections Act
the next general election in April of 1972. Let me explain that, and if I am wrong perhaps someone will wish to correct me.
If a British subject arrived in Canada on June 15, 1967 for example, and then proceeded to vote at the election in June of 1968, by April of 1972 that individual would not have qualified for Canadian citizenship because he would lack the five years of permanent resir dency which is necessary under the present legislation. Some members in the House are under the impression that British subjects are allowed to become Canadian citizens with only a 12-month waiting period. That is not correct. The requirement is five years permanent residency. The only person who may become a Canadian citizen on an accelerated schedule is a British subject who is the wife of a Canadian citizen.
One may well say that this affects only a small handful of people, but I think it is wrong in principle to say to a group of people who voted in the 1968 election that, even if they wish to obtain Canadian citizenship, they may not vote if an election is held before June of 1972. That principle is wrong. That is one of the small, technical reasons I simply cannot bring myself to support an amendment which would have that effect. Depending on the date of the next election, conceivably a great many people who voted in 1968 could be deprived of the right to vote. I am not prepared to support the amendment on that basis.
I can well understand those who want to achieve a middle position. Just as has been stated by the minister and others here, I cannot agree that we should preserve a cultural elite in this country and that people from British Commonwealth countries or from France should enjoy special status. That as well is wrong. That is why I lean toward an amendment which I hope will be considered favourably this afternoon. I do not intend to speak on it now but I have reference to the amendment advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. It seems to me this is the kind of compromise which may well improve the present situation, and may well enjoy widespread support in this House.


George Albert Proud: May I ask a question? Do you not think that a period of two years is long enough for people who, at the moment, are not Canadian citizens to pick up their Canadian citizenship papers? Surely, that is long enough for them to make up their minds as to whether they are going to become

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
Canadian citizens. What is the great difference between two years and three years? They will still have to make up their minds.


Raymond J. Perrault: I appreciate the hon. member's comment but he still has not met the situation I outlined to the House. I think that an informed person can easily obtain his citizenship in two years. But we have to remember that we have the long tradition in Canada of people who have come here in the knowledge, or understanding at least, that as British subjects they have the right to vote in Canadian elections should they achieve one year's residence. I think the educational campaign alone requires more than two years. I ask myself what would happen if we had a by-election in the next few weeks.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


George Albert Proud: I covered the point.


Raymond J. Perrault: It may be, and I may have been out of the House at the time. But we must lean over backward to accommodate people if we take this action, and I think it will take longer than two years, as has been suggested by hon. members this afternoon.
I should like to come back to the point that as yet we have not met, the basic difficulty of a number of people who simply will not have the right to vote in 1972 if we act in the undue and unseemly haste which I think is reflected in this amendment.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am glad to participate in the debate on the amendment to clause 14(3) of Bill C-215. I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, that, judging from the remarks made this morning by many hon. members, albeit with sincerity, they have contributed their thoughts without really appreciating the purport of the amendment that is before the committee or of the clause that is under study. I think it has been rather refreshing to hear the exchanges back and forth across the House. It is a healthy sign, and I believe the clause should be studied further by the Committee on Procedure. Although it may take more time, the atmosphere in the committee is more appropriate in spite of the physically exhausting meetings of that committee which we have been having.
I did not intend to participate at all in this debate until I heard different hon. members contributing their views, and I started to inquire just what was under debate. I read the clause and some of the speeches that have
IMr. Prud'homme.]
been made, and I share the view of other hon. members regarding the constructive nature of the debate. A little later I will comment on the contribution today by the hon. member for Saint-Denis. I find myself in the very refreshing position of agreeing with the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour. I share his enthusiasm and respect his energy, but sometimes I find I cannot agree with the decisions he makes or the way he votes. However, that is the prerogative of members of this House. I may go further than the hon. gentleman, but I am glad there are members on both sides of the House, including the hon. member for Ontario who spoke earlier, who are expressing different viewpoints on this very basic clause.
I should like to point out to the House Leader that if he wants to expedite the passage of Bill C-215, some members better get their heads together to find out where we stand on clause 14 (3) as well as the amendments proposed. Since this clause touches on a pretty basic and sensitive issue, as well as an emotional issue, as was apparent from some of the speeches we heard this morning, it may be the subject of a prolonged debate.
I have listened with interest this morning to many hon. members, as I did to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour a minute ago. He said that in Canada there are no special groups, that we are all Canadians. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East spoke with passion and conviction of his idea of Canada which I think would equal if not surpass some of the gratuitous remarks on nationalism made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, be they made in Denver or before the Canadian Club. There is no one in this chamber who has a monopoly on being a good nationalist, a good Canadian, a good mother, a good father or a good member of Parliament. We all share these things. The difference is between prayer and practice. How do you define a good Canadian or a good nationalist?
I should like to speak particularly to the hon. member for Saint-Denis and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North-I will not mention him further if he is not here-as well as to the hon. member for Roberval, who spoke before noon and whom I informed of what I was going to say. I find it strange that we in this chamber can speak of no special group, no special status, when this Parliament, in trying 100 years ago to define a Canada enshrined a certain status and rights in some of the statutes of this Parliament. 1 only have to refer to the Official Languages Bill.
June 22, 1970

I say to the hon. member for Matane-who is sometimes in his seat and now I see him in the chamber-as well as any French speaking Canadian: Do not start to tamper retroactively with the rights that have come down through history. If you do you will shake the whole foundation, the whole platform of trust and confidence which it has been so difficult to build over the past 100 years. I am not referring to British subjects who come to this country today or who will come tomorrow or a year from now. I agree with the hon. member for Saint-Denis and the hon. member for Matane that these new Canadians, be they of Ukrainian, British, Italian or American origin, should all be treated the same. That should be the tenet of the just society. But I cannot be a member of a Parliament that refers to a just society and at the same time produces an amendment that unjustly and retroactively affects rights that were given to a certain class of Canadians long before we became Members of Parliament. This is what the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Matane seeks to do.
As I read clause 14 (3), it is a happy compromise and a good clause. It may not find agreement with all members of the House, but for any member who is not aware of what it says let me point out that it states clearly it would not apply to those British Canadians who came here before the last election. Perhaps if we had been members of the House back in 1867 there would have been a different law on citizenship and a different law regarding voting, but that is not the reality now. We are faced with a law that affects those British subjects who came to Canada and, rightly or wrongly, were given a certain privilege. This privilege should not be continued in the future, but certainly it should be preserved and not taken away retroactively today. What clause 14 (3) says is that British subjects who voted in the last election, and who are still resident in Canada, because of the conditions under which they came to Canada they shall keep the right to vote.
Since the act, as I understand it, is silent with regard to British subjects who came here after June 25, 1968, which was the date of the last election, those British subjects will face the same duties and responsibilities as the Italian, Spanish, German and other immigrants. If I misinterpreted this, I hope someone will correct me. In the future, from the day this clause is proclaimed, all new Canadians coming to this country will be treated
Canada Elections Act
equally. I think that is just. But I point out seriously to my French speaking friends, and especially to the hon. member for Roberval who spoke with such conviction about his own concept of Canada, and also to the hon. member for Papineau, who uttered some interesting sounds just before noon; stop, look and listen. If I understood correctly the contributions of hon. members this morning, I share with them the view that we should build a new constitution on the reality of today, looking forward to tomorrow, and perhaps forget about the reality of 100 years ago.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I say to the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour that whether we like it or not we have a constitution, but because of the history of our country there is a difference in the interpretation of it. Was it a contract that was entered into in 1867? Coming closer to Mr. Pearson's day and perhaps the reality of the situation, was the objective to help build a land based on two founding nations?
This Parliament passed the Official Languages Act. It was because of the rights established in 1867, and it was because of the precedents and traditions that flowed from those rights that, in effect, we have two special groups in this country, English speaking and French speaking Canadians. Some hon. members may take exception to that statement, but I point out to some of my hon. friends who said, "Forget about history" that I share some of the views of the so-called third force. Are we to try to create a new constitution looking only at the retroactive rights acquired in 1867, at all of the good will and some ill will that flowed down to us during those 100 years? I say we should look at the reality of Canada today, and not only at the founding races in 1867. We should look at all of the races represented here today, and build our new constitution on that basis. One of the reasons we are so bogged down in the constitutional morass, and stuck in the swampland of constitutional debate, is that we have been looking backwards.
If the hon. member for Saint-Denis wants to project what I am saying into constitutional development, then I might go along with him, and with the hon. member for Matane on this bill, particularly if they want to forget the rights given by Parliament to certain people. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East mentioned that rights are changed every day, that we amend laws every day. I would ask him to stand up in this chamber this

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
afternoon, tonight, or indeed any time, and point out chapter and verse showing when Parliament has taken away rights retroactively. Of course we amend the laws, but we do so for the future.
I submit that the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was rather facile, and even facetious, when he said that we were here to pass laws. Of course we are, and that is what we are doing with Bill C-215. Clause 14(3) will affect people after it is proclaimed, but unlike the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Matane it will not take away rights those people have enjoyed for many years. I do not think it was intended that way, but I think there are some very iniquitous principles behind the amendment that could affect the fabric of the land.
The hon. member for Saint-Denis challenged the right hon. member for Prince Albert by saying that if unity would be diluted he would not support this amendment. He would not even support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra which would grant five years in which to effect the change. I point out that this bill, which was passed by the committee-it may not have been unanimous-in clause 14(3) takes care of the equities and balances the history of the past with the reality of the future.
French speaking members of the House who support this amendment should beware, not because the amendment by itself is going to stir up a lot of emotion, or cause an avalanche of backlash-I do not think that is necessarily the case-but because it could be a catalyst for that. The very fact that we have spent all morning and part of the afternoon debating this clause illustrates as clearly as anything that there is a problem involved, even though the hon. member for Saint-Denis says that in his heart he does not believe there is any problem caused by the clause or by the amendments proposed.
I can accept the bill in its present form because it will take care of the situation with respect to new Canadians in the future, from whatever country they come, but the amendment before the committee will retroactively take away a right that has been enjoyed by a certain body of Canadians. In this case it happens to be British subjects. It could have been Ukrainians, it could have been Canadians of Italian origin, it could have been French speaking Canadians. That is the important point we have to consider when we debate this clause.
[Mr. Nowlan.f
I look forward to creating a constitution on some of the principles enunciated by the hon. member for Saint-Denis, forgetting about the past and looking ahead to the future. But there is not a French speaking man, including the Prime Minister and French speaking members on both sides of the House, who wants to forget about the past when you talk about a constitution or about official languages. The Official Languages Act affirms some of the traditions, precedents and law handed down from the past. I suggest that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
As the hon. member for Oxford said, adoption of the proposed amendment could act as a catalyst. He pointed out that a good many Canadians are starting to wonder what is going on, particularly with reference to this bill. When you start to build a country, in which one group was ignored for a long time, was held back for a long time-a lot of this the fault of that group itself-by strengthening that group through taking from another group which possesses rights given to it by parliament, then you are not proceeding in the right way to build a country. For that reason, I think all hon. members should pay attention to the implications of the amendments proposed. I think that clause 14(3) covers the situation fairly, balances the rights of the past, does not project any preference into the future, and does not retroactively take away rights.


George Albert Proud: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, I am putting a question to the hon. member because he so often referred to the member for Saint-Denis.
I should like to ask him after listening very carefully to the speeches made this morning and this afternoon, whether this does not remind him of what was said during a debate on the new flag, that it would divide our country forever? At that time, I was in the House and I voted for that legislation because I was convinced that it was not a proposal which would divide our country, but would unite it. And there is no one in this House who can say that the new Canadian flag has divided our country, far from it. I have said that if they were convinced that this amendment would divide our country and if I were
June 22, 1970

myself convinced that this action was motivated by some anti-British feeling. I would vote against it. But I consider that this change comes within the natural development of our country towards what we call the total equality of all Canadians.
Does my hon. friend not believe that the feelings which motivated the flag debate are somewhat similar to those which motivate the debate now in progress?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I think the very fact that the hon. member for Saint-Denis poses that question shows the danger and/or confusion that will arise if we prolong debate on clause 14(3). I am not going to be diverted by any red herring about the flag. I was not in the chamber then, but if I had been no doubt I would have contributed my thoughts. We are not debating the flag. This section of the bill concerns rights given by previous Parliaments of Canada, citizenship rights and voting rights.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I suggest to my hon. friend that there is a big difference between this debate and a debate on what type of flag or national anthem the country is going to have. That is a sentimental subject, an emotional subject. Nothing was crystallized in a statute and that was why it was debated, so that we could have a national anthem and a flag. But that is another issue. The fact that my friend has tried to infer that my remarks are resurrecting the flag debate points out the danger we are in when discussing clause 14 (3).
I am saying sincerely that we are not dealing with emotion or blood, sweat and tears, as was the case in the flag debate, when the heart often ruled the head and speeches got emotional. Here, we are talking about rights under a statute, and I submit that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Matane takes away those rights. It does not achieve what the hon. member for Fraser Valley East says he has in mind. Amending future rights is the purpose of Parliament but this amendment takes away rights. It is iniquitous indeed when the Parliament of any country, and especially our country composed of two founding races and many new Canadians, plays retroactively with the rights of citizens. As far as I am concerned, it is as simple and as basic as that.


Mr. St. Pierre:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate with a great deal of interest,
Canada Elections Act
and it seems to me to have had a content which is lacking all too often in this chamber. Some of the remarks have been heavily charged with emotion, but that is not necessarily bad because it was an emotion that came out of sincerity and strong feeling for the country in an effort to do what was best for the country. In my remarks, however, I would hope to be entirely unemotional on this matter and to come down to the dry dust of the facts as I see them.
First of all, I should like to make a brief reference to the remarks concerning the status of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, because I feel a misunderstanding could result from this exchange. I suggest the hon. member was not asked to take out Canadian citizenship in order to get his passport but was in the position of a great number of Canadians during this past year and a half who have been asked and obliged to supply proof of citizenship. There is no doubt and no one disputes that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is a Canadian. I do not think that he or other hon. members should object to being asked for proof of Canadian citizenship. Neither do I think that I, or any native bom Canadian or long naturalized Canadian citizen, should object. Let us remind ourselves of the situation when the issuance of Canadian passports was a scandal. Spies and other undesirables were making use of our lax laws in order to obtain false passports for improper purposes, so this country had a duty to itself and to the international community to tighten the regulations. This involves the presentation of proof of citizenship and, in my opinion is entirely proper.
Returning to the point at issue, after having listened to almost all of the debate it seems to me that there is a general disposition on all sides of the House to believe that citizenship is a privilege to be sought and that it should be a requirement for those who wish to vote in Canadian elections. There also seems to be a feeling that the special status enjoyed by some citizens of other countries should not be continued.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris offered one exception to this. He felt that we should retain the present system for British people coming to this country and also that we should extend it to include French people. I And myself totally out of sympathy with this proposition and I have not heard hon. members from Quebec evince the slightest interest in offering special status to citizens of

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
France. I think most of us who have read history realize just how much love and interest France lavished on her people here. This was pointed out very dramatically by Mayor Jean Drapeau of Montreal who told how the French colonial governors scurried back to France, leaving their children tied to the kitchen and the barn. Quebec's code is "I remember", and I suggest that Quebec does remember.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris was the only one who suggested extending these rights, however. The burden of the comments of other members has been that only Canadian citizens should vote. The dispute has settled on the question of whether British people who have had special voting privileges should retain them provided, as recommended in committee, that they voted in the election of June, 1968. Another amendment suggests a five-year waiting period. The amendment presently before us suggests a two-year waiting period and the movers of it feel that this is sufficient time to enable people to obtain their citizenship papers.
The speaker who preceded me suggested that taking away the special rights presently held by British subjects is retroactive legislation and therefore bad. I do not fully subscribe to this, Mr. Speaker. There are occasions in which retroactive law must be passed-in fact most budgets come in with retroactive provisions and this is necessary for the public good. In the case of the proposed sale of Denison Mines, and I was one who approved the government action there, hon. members will recall that the government said legislation would be brought in retroactively if necessary.
I do not believe that retroactivity is of itself wicked, but I suggest it should be brought in only when there is a clear demonstration of public interest. In this respect, I find myself powerfully moved by the speech of the hon. member for Ontario, who pointed out facts which all members should consider very seriously. There are people who have been in this country for 40 or 50 years, who have voted in every election and have served the country in war. Now, they are elderly and some are impoverished. How can we explain to them that, although they could vote in the election of 1968 and all preceding elections they cannot vote in 1972 unless they hold a citizenship certificate which will cost them $10. This is strange to them and they will resent it deeply.

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if for 103 years British subjects resident in Canada have had special status it will not hurt to continue that status for a few more years. I am unable to find myself in sympathy with the amendment before us. However, I am in sympathy with its spirit. Practically speaking, it will be unfair to British subjects who have lived here, worked for this country and voted in our elections. Anticipating that subsequent amendments will be moved which will merely extend the period in which some people must apply for Canadian citizenship, may I say that they, too, will do the spirit of this country more harm than good. I intend to support the bill as recommended to the House by the committee, which sat long hours in study of this matter. It said that the British subject who was qualified as an elector on June 25, 1968 and who has since that time been ordinarily resident in Canada, should for his lifetime retain his special privilege which has been granted to him in the past. I think that the date of the passage of this bill is the proper date with respect to any new system of eligibility for voting in Canadian elections.


James Edgar Walker: Will the hon. member permit a question? He emphasized heavily that the people of whom he was speaking, British subjects, have been here for 30, 40 or 50 years and that they have voted in many elections prior to the one in 1968. Is the reverse of this question also not correct, namely, that there are many who voted for the first time as British subjects in 1968 who do not come within the category of persons that the hon. member was speaking about generally?


Paul St. Pierre: I do not know the answer to that, Mr. Chairman. I do not know how many British subjects voted for the first time in 1968. Nevertheless, I think that my suggestion with respect to a cut-off date is practical, and would be fairest for all concerned.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that we fully and wholeheartedly support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), especially since when I first spoke on this matter, I pointed out this unacceptable gap in the Elections Act.
I also noted that the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) had already introduced a bill dealing with the privileges the Elections Act gives to British subjects.
June 22, 1970

When one examines the present amendment, the following question comes to mind: How is it that in 1970 we find ourselves discussing the advisability of rejecting this amendment? I wonder why we are discussing this, since the question is of course beyond argument.
I wonder whether this is an illogical situation that some just want to perpetuate or unfortunate childishness on the part of many Canadians, because such provisions in the Elections Act are not justifiable on any grounds whatsoever.
And I mean it. For no reasons whatsoever. Indeed, if we were to inquire of 10 British subjects who are not Canadian citizens, who have been living in Canada for one or twp years and have been through an election, we should no doubt find out that several of them did not avail themselves of that right to vote granted them by the act. I imagine that a proper British subject, arriving in Canada and finding that he has the right to vote after one year's residence, will refuse to exercise that right, for he cannot be aware of Canadian politics.
Besides, if he is already aware of Canadian customs, way of thinking and law, I suppose he will have seen fit to obtain a Canadian citizenship certificate. So I wonder why we are even discussing it.
This line of argument pursued theoretically could lead to the following conclusion. I say "theoretically" since in practice I cannot question anyone's intentions. Indeed, at some point, in some ridings on the island of Montreal, for instance, where English-speaking people make up 50 per cent of the population, scores of British subjects could be brought in and scattered in some strategic ridings to weigh down the scale of power. Theoretically speaking, this could be done if elections could be foreseen a year in advance.
It is unthinkable that such a thing can exist and we should all support an amendment aimed at amending the legislation by simply deleting subclause (3) of clause 14.
We claim to be adults and, consequently, we fail to see why Canadian citizenship should be given at a discount to anyone, be he British subject, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, German or whatever. Discount sales are held in stores, but I do not see why the basic democratic right, the right to vote, should be given away to people who have just emigrated and who do not even have a certificate of Canadian citizenship.
Canada Elections Act
To my mind, there is something sadly lacking there and, doubtless all my colleagues, especially those from Quebec, agree with the member for Matane in this regard and want that paragraph to be simply stricken out.
As for those who have already exercized their franchise as British subjects, and who are not Canadian citizens, they have of course had the advantage of a privilege. All they need do now is to make their participation to Canadian life formal by becoming full-fledged Canadian citizens. I do not see why a time' limit should be set within which they can take out Canadian citizenship, and doubtless the authorities concerned will be pleased to grant it to them.
There is therefore no problem with regard to knowing how much longer that situation must be tolerated: it must no longer be tolerated. Indeed, it is intolerable, and because we have acted like children until now, by tolerating such exclusiveness in the law, is reason why it would be justifiable to maintain an absurd, idiotic and childish provision. We now have the opportunity to delete it; let us do so simply, and thus show that we are in an adult country, which is concerned about true democracy.
In closing my remarks, I wish to point out that subclause (3) is antidemocratic because the mere presence of a few hundreds of British subjects in a riding could tip the scales in an election one way or the other. Theoretically, that could happen. So, we see how liberty and democracy could be strained.
All of us hold democratic liberty dear; we now have the opportunity to prove it by deleting subclause (3) of clause 14 from this bill.
e (4:10p.m.)


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak briefly in this debate. I wish to endorse the views expressed by some hon. members opposite, including the hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East. I also support the position taken a few moments ago by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin and the position taken this morning by the hon. member for Ontario.
This is an important discussion. I make no criticism of the motives of the people who have moved this resolution which proposes striking out a proposed clause of the bill which denies those people who are British subjects and not Canadian citizens some of the rights which they now have. I think this
8442

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
discussion has shown that the members of this House are trying to find a better way, if that is possible, in which the various people who make up our population can stand in some kind of approximate equality before our laws, particularly with regard to the important matter of voting in our elections.
I suggest that the search for absolute justice, which may give the appearance of treating everyone alike, can bring about unjust results. The point has been well made by several speakers that the people of this country have a differing status and differing rights which result from our history and the development of our laws over the years. 1 have no hesitation in saying that if this particular amendment is passed it will not accomplish a great national purpose of achieving equality between the various sections of our population, but rather it will have a punitive and discriminatory effect against a very large and important part of our population.
The hon. member for Saint-Denis has stated several times in the course of this discussion that if he could be persuaded that the adoption of this proposal will have a divisive effect, he will not lend his support to it. He appears not to have been convinced by the responses made by members opposite. Perhaps he will be more disposed to look more carefully at my opinion which is that this will have a divisive effect, and for that reason is to be deplored.
Many points have been made in this debate. It would be an imposition on hon. members who have sat through this discussion to repeat these points at this stage. One thing should be said by way of emphasizing what the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Canadian Citizenship Act said earlier this afternoon. While this discussion has been going on I have been looking at the Canadian Citizenship Act and the various provisions contained in it relating to immigrants from the United Kingdom who are British subjects now resident in Canada. It occurred to me from this cursory survey of the statute, as the minister suggested, that it stands very clearly in need of study, revision and clarification.
I make the practical point that if the amendment of the hon. member for Matane is adopted, there will be a very confused situation at the time of any enumeration. Many people who have lived in this country for a long time would be uncertain as to their position. That appears to be a practical reason why we should not make any radical change of the type that has been proposed.

I wish to reiterate a point which has been made many times by other speakers in this debate. There has to be a measure of justice, tolerance and respect between all sections of our population. We will not achieve this justice, tolerance and respect if we attempt to pass a law which is directed against a very substantial group in the population. There is no question in my mind that if this amendment is passed, it will have the effect of taking away rights which have been exercised by a large number of people in Canada for a very long time.
It will have the effect of depriving this important group of people of their franchise. I have been thinking about these people during the course of this discussion. They have contributed much to our country. Many of them have fought in our wars and many of their children have fought in our wars. I know of several widows whose husbands and sons were killed. We must be very careful before we say to these people that for technical reasons you are not Canadians like the rest of us, and you must go through some special procedure in order to vote as you have done in previous elections.
This is an unjust type of suggestion. It will strike many people as unfair because it has an element of injustice and unfairness about it. It is clearly predictable that the adoption of this resolution will have a divisive effect. It will be a reflection on this Parliament. It will be harmful to the country. For these reasons I hope this particular amendment will be defeated.


George Albert Proud: May I ask a question? Does the hon. member believe that the fact that we want to Canadianize our institutions
is divisive?


Duncan Gordon Blair: we are continually engaged in an attempt to make living in this country more acceptable to every part of the population. I suppose the word "Canadianize" applies to that. I can only reply by repeating my argument that no good purpose will be accomplished if in the process of making a change which one group thinks is important it alienates, infuriates and has a punitive effect against another section of the population.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have not been here for all of this debate. I
June 22, 1970

have been away for some time on parliamentary business. I have had the privilege of hearing part of the discussion this afternoon. I feel so strongly about what I have heard that I wish to express my personal opinion on the matter now under discussion. I have no hesitation in saying that I completely agree with the point of view so admirably put forward by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin. The hon. member made reference to Canadian citizenship. This really hit me hard, because I have always felt that I am a Canadian citizen. Yet this Spring when my passport ran out-I have a green passport, a special passport, as issued to all Members of Parliament-I discovered that because of a strange system of bureaucracy and regulation requiring that certain things had to be done, it could not be renewed without delay.
I have been a resident of the city of Vancouver for 60 years.


Grant Deachman: You are a Canadian.


Harold Edward Winch: You think so?


Grant Deachman: Yes, you are.


Harold Edward Winch: I have been a resident of Vancouver for 60 years; I was a member of the British Columbia Legislature for 20 years, during which time I was leader of the opposition for 12 years. I served in the armed forces for three years and I have been a member of the House of Commons for 17 years. I have had a green special passport for 17 years. And when I applied for a renewal of my passport this spring, I was told I had to prove I was a Canadian citizen.


Grant Deachman: So did I. So did everybody in this chamber.


Harold Edward Winch: Let me finish. Then, I had to wait for a month to get this card with my photograph on it before I could get a passport. Believe it or not, it hit me pretty hard that I had to prove, after all these years, with the record and career I have mentioned, that I was a Canadian citizen before my passport could be renewed.
Apply these circumstances to the change now proposed, the amendment put forward to the Elections Act. For 103 years, a British subject resident in Canada for one year was recognized as a Canadian citizen with all the rights of Canadian citizenship, including the right to vote, without having to produce a card with a picture on it to prove Canadian citizenship. Not thousands, not hundreds of thou-22478-441
Canada Elections Act
sands, but, I would say, millions of people in Canada not only believe themselves to be Canadian citizens but have been recognized as Canadian citizens with the right to vote, the right to become members of provincial legislatures and of Parliament. It would be a most retrograde step to say to these people, pioneers of Canada, that just because they are British subjects they no longer have any rights in Canada as far as voting is concerned unless they prove they are Canadian citizens by carrying a citizenship card. I sincerely hope that stupidity will not go so far as to lead us to tell these people that unless they hold an official card they cannot vote in the next election or in the elections which will follow.


Pierre De Bané: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. I am the one who moved the motion to amend the bill. I believe every hon. member is discussing the amendment in good faith.
I will not tolerate that an amendment submitted by me should be termed stupid by an hon. member, whatever his worth and his record.
I respect the hon. member and I venture to believe that he also wants the debate to remain on a level worthy of all hon. members.


Harold Edward Winch: I wish the hon. member had thought of that when he introduced his motion, one which affects people who have been Canadian citizens upon all occasions and in respect of whom I think there should be no suggestion that they should lose their rights, or their understanding of being Canadian citizens by reason of a change in the Elections Act. I am sorry if I hurt the hon. member's feelings by saying I thought the amendment was stupid. If he does not like that word, I will put it this way: I regret that the suggestion we are considering should have been made by any Member of the House of Commons because it shows disrespect to millions of people in this country who have always felt they were Canadian citizens without requiring any card. I sincerely hope that in their wisdom, acumen and understanding the members of this House will take no action to alter the Elections Act so as to prevent these people from exercising their rights and privileges as Canadian citizens unless they carry a particular authentication. If, in the years ahead, it might be thought desirable to bring about a change in present policy, I hope it

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
will be done on the basis of a recognition that those who are Canadian citizens under our law are automatically accepted as being so.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, I am among those who think that this debate has lasted too long and, on the whole, that it has deviated from its purpose. It is important, I feel, to clarify certain things.
Some tried in their speeches to give the impression that there was a quarrel between French Canadians and English Canadians while there is nothing of the kind. We have proved, I think, that this is not so since we rejected the proposal of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) tending to grant French immigrants the same privilege as those from the Commonwealth.
I was surprised to find out that the most rabid separatists are not those from Quebec, as one would think, but rather those who persist in claiming special privileges while several New Canadians of all races, established in Canada for many decades, are as deserving as they are.
We want to decide, once and for all, whether Canada is self-governing country and whether all Canadians should be treated equally and enjoy the same rights so that nobody should have privileges.
I can understand that in the past privileges have been granted to some classes of citizens. It should not have been so perhaps and if it had not been the case, there would have probably been less misunderstanding and division in this country. I believe that we are now mature enough to decide that the status of Canadian citizen entails certain conditions that everybody will have to fill.
Some hon. members are shocked to be obliged to produce a proof of citizenship in order to go to vote but, after all, we are all required to do so. My ancestors came to this country in 1629 and this is much earlier than those of most of those who are protesting against regularizing a situation which has lasted too long already. And yet, we are obliged to prove that we are Canadian citizens in all sorts of circumstances where it is requested to produce our baptismal certificates in order to establish that we have the right to vote in such and such circumstance, which, besides, is the practice in every country in the world.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Those who since this morning have turned the debate into a racial conflict have done a

disservice to the Canadian nation and to Parliament. The subject matter we are dealing with is injustice. Canada is a member of the Commonwealth, an organization that comprises 26 countries. Only eight of them give the franchise to Canadians and two do not give them the right to be candidates in any election. Why should we be asked to be more generous toward foreigners? In most cases, they are citizens of very small countries.
We are talking of injustice, Mr. Chairman. We are not disfranchising anyone. We simply say to foreigners: Go and register as Canadian citizens, then, you will vote in the next election. We do not want to deprive you of your privileges, because you have been just as good Canadians as the others, you served during the war, you paid taxes and contributed to the economic development of Canada about which we are so proud.
I do not think that hon. members from Quebec could be blamed for bringing racial considerations into the debate. On the contrary, we have proved since the beginning that we wanted to build a united and independent Canada. Indeed, I think that we have had some merit since all year round we fight against those of us who advocate separatism, who tear at the fabric of Confederation. I do not understand that some of our opponents, who wish to perpetuate this system of privileges, to which no other Canadian is entitled, do not realize that they are those who are responsible for the division from which we are suffering at this time in Canada, and which we are trying to minimize by all sorts of means.
Mr. Chairman, again I say that we are not taking anything away from anybody, that anyone wishing to vote could register. The formality is very simple, but if they do not deem the Canadian citizenship worth that small effort, they do not deserve to be considered as Canadians.
In opening my remarks, I said I thought that this debate had lasted too long. I shall not dwell on this, except to urge all my colleagues to talk with all possible objectivity, even if they are influenced by some particular considerations. Therefore, may I be permitted to ask my colleagues to put an end to this discussion and to proceed to the vote, so that this question might be settled once and for all.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question?
June 22, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. De Bane) negatived: Yeas, 22; nays, 30.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost. Is the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre rising on a point of order?


Mr. Benjamin:: No, Mr. Chairman, to speak in the debate.


James Hugh Faulkner: The hon. member for
York-Sunbury.


John Chester MacRae: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I outlined very briefly the other day. I am not going to repeat what I said at this particular point; I will merely present my amendment to you and to the leaders of the parties. What the amendment does, in effect, is to retain the status quo. I move:
Resolved that clause 14(3) be deleted and the following substituted:
(3) Every British subject, other than a Canadian citizen who has been ordinarily resident in Canada for the twelve months immediately preceding polling day at such election, is qualified as an elector.
The point of this entire amendment has been very well expounded in this House by the hon. member for Cumberland and the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I will say no more but would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to put the amendment.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. MacRae) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 46.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, last Tuesday I and a number of other members, following the amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane, outlined the sense and the wording of amendments that we had in mind to this particular clause. Rather than repeat what I said last Tuesday, I refer hon. members to page 8208 of Hansard.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I wish to move an amendment to subclause 3 of clause 14. I may say at the beginning that it seems to me what is in question here is not whether or not people should have Canadian citizenship in order to retain the franchise in federal elections. That principle is being
Canada Elections Act
embodied in the bill. The objections which have been voiced have mainly related to the timing and how this is to be brought into being.
I have said before, and I repeat, that I approve in general what is in the bill, but it applies retroactively from June 25, 1968. In fact, it applies to British subjects who have arrived or will arrive from June 26, 1967 up to the coming into force of this Act, whenever that may be.
Hon. members may follow the wording of my amendment by referring to page 8208 of Hansard the second column about half way down. I wish to move:
That clause 14 be amended by deleting subclause 3 on page 24 and substituting therefor the following:
"(3) Every British subject, other than a Canadian citizen, who
(a)	was qualified as an elector immediately prior to the coming into force of the provisions of this act referred to in subsection 2 of section 119, and
(b)	has not, since that date, ceased to be ordinarily resident in Canada, is deemed to be qualified as an elector.'
The purpose of this amendment is to apply the principle in this bill, but to make it effective when this bill comes into force rather than on June 25, 1968. In other words, those British subjects who arrived in Canada after June 25, 1967 up until the date this bill comes into force will still be able to vote in a federal election as British subjects, but those people who arrive in Canada from the day after this Act comes into force will be required to obtain Canadian citizenship the same as anyone else who comes to Canada. The principle that is intended in the bill would take effect some three years later than is proposed in the bill.
I estimate this would affect somewhere between 60,000 and 80,000 British subjects who will have immigrated to Canada between June 25, 1967 and the day this act comes into force. I have had some communication with people who are in this category, and it is possible other members have also, and I cannot agree completely with the remarks of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin regarding retroactivity. I still do not believe that the provision of the franchise or any changes affecting it should be made retroactive. Our electoral law should take effect from the day the law comes into force, not prior to it coming into force.
I submit, and I hope the members of the committee will agree, that this is not a major change in the bill. I submit it does provide

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
fair treatment for all those British subjects who arrive in Canada prior to the coming into force of this bill. Those who arrive after that will be treated the same as any other immigrant. They will know about this change when they arrive. They will not be told about if after they arrive, thinking they have the right to vote in a federal election, or after they have voted in a federal election.
I commend this amendment to the committee, and I hope it will prove acceptable to all members as an addition to what I think is the generally welcomed principle being established under this new election law.


George Albert Proud: I will be very short, Mr. Chairman. Let me bring to the attention of the hon. member that if we agree to this amendment we will not only have two classes of Canadian electors, but within one of those two classes we are creating two classes of British citizen in Canada, those who were here before and those who came after. We will have more division created among British citizens because of these two classes of electors of British origin.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It seems to me that what is now in the bill does that. Our defeat of the previous amendment, in effect, confirms what is in the bill. All my amendment does is extend this principle for a further short period. It extends the present status of British subjects under our law. This bill creates two classes now. The committee has had ample evidence that hon. members do not agree with the amendment. They agreed generally with the principle in the bill. All my amendment does is extend that principle for a short period of time.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to commend the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre on his excellent amendment. I wish he had brought it before the committee. He would have improved our wisdom then and, heaven knows, we might have been away over to page 199 by now. In a sense, I think the hon. member has tidied up this whole matter in that he has brought the question right up to the proper time. I have reference to the time of the passage of this Act. With reference to my friend and fellow traveller, the hon. member for Saint-Denis, it is very difficult it seems to me to avoid this matter of having two types of British citizen because we have already voted down one amendment which would take away for the duration of this legislation those rights which people have had

for a long time. We have now just voted down an amendment which would extend those rights.
What it seems to me we are doing, to use a non-legal term, is phasing-out rights which were granted to people in times past. I think the most logical way of approaching this is the way suggested by the hon. member; that is, up to the passage of this legislation those rights which were granted would be honoured. Surely, this is what we have been looking for all the way through. This is a very reasonable method of dealing with this whole matter. We have agreed wisely, as a committee, that we should neither extend these rights in the future nor cut off those rights that were legitimately extended in the past. It seems to me that the hon. member has bridged the gap. He is a very thoughtful member and I am sure he has also considered the change in the age group. There will not be this five-year gap with people being deprived of rights which were granted to them. This amendment will do away with that retroactive problem. This is a very commendable measure and I urge support for it.


Mr. Allmand:: I have just a few words, Mr. Chairman. My principal objection to the amendment now before the House is that it perpetuates the right of a group of people who will, until they die, have the right to vote without becoming Canadian citizens. It even goes beyond what the government has in the bill. The government would perpetuate the rights of a group of people who had the right to vote up to June 25, 1968. They will continue to have that right until they die. This amendment would go beyond that group and include all those who arrive in Canada up until the date this Act is put into force.
I much prefer the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra which would give these people five years to obtain their Canadian citizenship. He suggested an incentive in the law which would continue for the time being the right to vote but would place an obligation on these people to obtain their Canadian citizenship within five years. The amendment before the House does not bring any end to this privilege, and I call it a privilege. I am afraid I will have to vote against it. I hope the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra will introduce his amendment so I can vote for it.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Chairman, a few
moments ago I expressed myself in favour of
June 22, 1970

the legislation as submitted by the committee under clause 14 (3), namely, that the cut-off date should be June 25, 1968. I should like to say very briefly that I listened to the statement of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre and it seems to me that his solution is a happier one than the committee's. Therefore, I would like to support his amendment.


J. Michael Forrestall: I would just like to add to the words of my friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough, and compliment the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre on having indeed tidied up what seems to be an oversight. I should not like to anticipate an amendment which I am sure will come before the committee before the afternoon is over, but would like to reiterate my own position by saying that I cannot see how, having once given a right to a group of individuals, we can ever take it away.
I would like to go back to the position of the committee, the principle on which the clause is based and the clause that is currently in the bill which is being amended by what I say again is a reasonable amendment. I would like to indicate that once we have done something, surely it is not right morally, legally or in any other way to take away that right, particularly from people who come here between now and the date of the next election after the date of the coming into force of this act, as well as those who came after June 25, 1968. I do not see how we can disenfranchise 60,000 or 70,000 new Canadians in this category if over the next two or three years the trends in immigration to Canada continue as they have.
I think that while there is not much point in reiterating the arguments that have been put forward in the last few hours in the committee, I must make it clear that the tidying up amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is far more preferable, to me, than any amendment which might be moved which would take away all the rights of British subjects. I think we have already dealt with that matter.


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, I only wish to point out that we missed a while ago an exceptional opportunity to settle the entire problem. Indeed, the amendment under consideration does not really introduce anything new, except that it frankly recognizes that all those who wish to vote in Canada should be Canadian citizens. Now, the amendment proposed by the hon. member merely, as it were, gilds the pill.
Canada Elections Act
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I fail to understand why so many government members did not vote a while ago in favour of the amendment of their colleague from Matane (Mr. De Bane), especially the hon. members for Chambly and Missisquoi (Messrs. Pilon and Forest).


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member who is now speaking is referring to the vote which was taken on the amendment of the hon. member for Matane. I do not believe he has any right to make suggestions about how any hon. member voted in this regard.


Mr.   Chairman@: The committee has heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 25; nays, 41.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment lost.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, many hon. members have expressed concern throughout the day for the position of those who came to this country from Great Britain, as British subjects, who under Canadian law were given equivalent rights of citizenship as every Canadian citizen and who, even after the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, were given the same rights under our electoral laws. They are to be considered in the amendments which we have before us because they are among those who, like the citizens of Canada who were born here or who came here and took out citizenship later, have been virtually citizens of Canada.
So when we think of this law and of how we are going to amend it, we must think with compassion of those brothers who have virtually held with us a status almost akin to citizenship. Therefore I have a small amendment which I think perhaps can find a middle ground between those who feel that an elector should be a Canadian citizen, on the one hand, and those who feel on the other hand that British citizenship should continue to be a qualification to taking part in a federal election. As a solution I propose simply that a space of time should be given for British subjects to acquire citizenship, and that after that period the qualification for a Canadian elector should be Canadian citizenship. I therefore move:
That Bill C-215 be amended by striking out line 10 on page 24 and substituting the following:

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
"-is, during the period commencing on the day upon which this act is assented to and terminating five years from that day, deemed to be qualified as an elector"-[DOT]
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This amendment simply means, Mr. Chairman, that all those British subjects who were qualified to vote in the June, 1968 election- not those who voted but those who were qualified, which includes those who voted- within five years after the coming into force of the act would have to acquire citizenship in order to vote again. If any election should take place within that five-year period and they had not acquired Canadian citizenship, they would of course be eligible to vote in a federal general election or by-election, but after that time they would have to acquire Canadian citizenship in order to vote in such elections. What are the advantages in having an amendment of this kind? First of all, in the amendment before us in the bill we have taken a step toward making citizenship a qualification for becoming an elector. The problem is that this is achieved simply by entrenching it in the bill.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I was not sure whether he was planning to speak to the hour, but I must point out that the House must now proceed to private members' business.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, if there is any disposition to carry on, we do not want to take advantage of the government's fumbling and bumbling on this matter and we would not object to an extra hour or so.


James Hugh Faulkner: Perhaps the correct procedure would be for me to rise, report progress and then hear hon. members on this point.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the committee have leave to sit again? Next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are not opposed to the suggestion that has been made, that we carry on with the elections bill, but I think the House should give a hand to the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) who had an important speech he was prepared to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House revert to committee of the whole for the purpose of considering Bill C-215?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Prior to reading the order I wish to inform the House of the business to be dealt with at the time of adjournment: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Pollution-monitoring of waters receiving effluent discharges from plants using mercury; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Health and Welfare-inclusion of optometric services under medicare; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Industry-proposed closing of Canadian subsidiary by Skil Corporation of Chicago.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-215, respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to overcome the objection contained in the present clause of the bill which would entrench all British subjects qualified as electors in June, 1968, as electors until the time they cease to vote or until they die. It overcomes that objection by giving them adequate time in which to obtain Canadian citizenship. It is interesting to note who those electors would be. They would not be all those British subjects who acquired Canadian citizenship prior to December 31, 1941, and who by virtue of the Citizenship Act of 1947 automatically became Canadian citizens. It would include all of that class who came to Canada after December 31, 1941, and who after that time had not taken out Canadian citizenship.
We can only make a guess at how many people that group comprises. According to the 1961 census, the number of U.K.-born people
June 22, 1970

in Canada represented about 5.3 per cent of our population. This in turn represents about one million people or more living in Canada today who were born in the United Kingdom. About half of those would be on the electoral rolls. So we are looking at something in the neighbourhood of half a million people who were qualified as electors in 1968 by virtue of being British subjects. Who will have to take out Canadian citizenship in order to qualify after a five-year period? It will not be, as someone suggested, the older persons who came to Canada before December 31, 1941, because those people are automatically Canadian citizens under the Citizenship Act. Moreover, my amendment does not require that they go through any procedure with the citizenship court in order to demonstrate the fact of their citizenship. They are Canadian citizens, and they no more need produce a citizenship certificate than someone born in Canada is required to produce his birth certificate, unless he happens to be challenged at the polls on his qualification to vote. So proof of citizenship is not an immediate or first requirement in registering as an elector, although from our familiarity with the act we know that it may be if the matter is disputed.
At this stage I wonder if I may clear up a point that has troubled some hon. members. It has been expressed in several ways today but still does not appear to be quite clear. First of all, those who acquired citizenship by virtue of the Citizenship Act of 1947 are not required to take out citizenship today. They are required to give proof of their citizenship. They are required to get the little card to which the hon. member for Vancouver East referred. It is the equivalent of a birth certificate. When a Canadian citizen is asked to produce proof of citizenship, he produces his birth certificate for which he paid two dollars to the registration office in the province of his birth. A person not born in Canada can produce proof of his Canadian citizenship by sending $2 to the citizenship court and obtaining a citizenship certificate. It does not cost $10, as someone suggested this afternoon. It is not an amount that would be a burden even for an elderly citizen.
The bill is specific in saying that this is not an application for a grant of citizenship. Item 3 of the regulations says that where a Canadian citizen desires a certificate of citizenship, he shall file an application on the prescribed form with the registrar, which is a very simple procedure; it is quite different from going to the citizenship court, being examined
Canada Elections Act
and making application for a grant of citizenship. So some things that have been said here this afternoon about citizenship and the rights of citizens, and about British subjects, have not really been in context with the act that is before us.
e (5:10 p.m.)
The amendment that I have is quite a simple one, Mr. Chairman, and meets the middle ground that all members want to meet in respect of this question. It minimizes the burden on these people making the transition and wishing to have their citizenship in good time for future elections, at the same time giving them an opportunity to vote under their old status as British subjects should an election be called within the next few years.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, in moving this amendment the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has indicated what I find to be the most objectionable aspect of it, that is, that people who thought themselves citizens of Canada will now have to prove their citizenship. Some members seem to think there is nothing wrong with this. They believe it is quite all right that someone who has lived in this country since 1947 and believes himself to be a Canadian citizen will find, if this amendment goes through, that he is not unless he can meet the bureaucratic demands of this government to prove it. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra says this is not any different from an application for a birth certificate. I suggest that if he had talked to people who had the problem, he would not make that comparison.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: There is a great deal of difference between getting a birth certificate and being told you have to prove you are a Canadian. I am sure that the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, with hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will find themselves in the same position, object very strongly to it. Having considered themselves to be Canadian citizens all their lives, suddenly they find that they must produce evidence of their citizenship. Apparently it makes no difference what service they gave to their country during that time.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: How do officials know that unless it is proved?


Robert Carman Coates: That is the trouble with this bureaucratic system; the officials have to be

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
told everything. The hon. member for Van- qualified as a citizen? The only difference is couver East has probably participated in that they are getting $2 from me that other politics for as long as he has lived.	people do not have to pay.


An hon. Member:: He is not that old.


Robert Carman Coates: Suddenly he is told by the bureaucrats in Ottawa that he must prove he is a Canadian. I am not alone in objecting to this. Some of my constituents find it very embarrassing and difficult to understand. As members of this House I do not think we should be causing any Canadian citizen to be embarrassed in any way, especially those who have participated in a very worth while way in building this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: What is the reason for all this embarrassment? It is very simple. At the time of the assassination of Martin Luther King, the Secretary of State for External Affairs had to draw up new regulations because the accused assassin had made a fool of his department. As a result, every Canadian who unfortunately happened to come from Great Britain many years ago now has to prove that he is a Canadian citizen. It is as ridiculous as this government is most of the time.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is not as good as the proposal put forward in Bill C-215. At least under that bill people who thought themselves to be Canadians, who have lived in this country all their lives, will not suddenly discover that they have to pay the bureaucrats $2 to make the decision that they are Canadians. It is a head tax-$2 a head. As the member for Vancouver Quadra stated, there may be 500,000 such people in this country, so the government has found $1 million there. It is indirect taxation, a head tax. If you come from Great Britain, you now have to prove that you are a Canadian. It is a ridiculous situation and it will be made more ridiculous should this amendment pass.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Robert Carman Coates: Certainly.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A moment ago the hon. member was asked a question by the hon. member for Cochrane. He wanted to know how the civil servants would know one was a citizen unless he made an application. Being in the same position, I should like to ask: How does the person or the department to whom I make application know that I am


Robert Carman Coates: Perhaps the hon. member should direct that question to the hon. member for Cochrane, who seems to know all the answers about how the bureaucratic-1


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Since I have been brought into the matter I should like to tell the hon. member that I paid a couple of dollars to have a citizenship certificate because I am proud to be a Canadian.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the insinuation was when the hon. member for Cochrane said that he was proud to be a Canadian citizen. This morning I said in the House that I served six years in the armed services, and I certainly did not do that for the money. I was proud of serving what I thought was my country. If there was an insinuation in the remark I should also like to ask, through you, Mr. Chairman: How does the civil servant know, unless you put in an application for citizenship? I would suggest to you that-
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Order, please. I would suggest that the hon. member address the Chair.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, through you I say to the hon. member for Cochrane that a civil servant rules, when I put my application in, whether I am a citizen or not. So far as I am concerned, the $2 does not enter into the question. It is a matter of principle, of tradition and of right. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has suggested that if you were in this country before 1947, automatically you have become a citizen. If his statement is correct, why does not the country of my adoption issue me with a citizenship certificate, without my needing to apply for it and pay $2? Somebody is wrong, and I should like to know who it is.


An hon. Member:: You are.


M. Ervin Pringle: Why don't they issue you a car licence every year?


John (Jack) McIntosh: For the same reason that they do not issue the hon. member a chicken licence.


M. Ervin Pringle: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I tell the hon. member that
June 22, 1970

every year the authorities issue me a chicken licence.


J. Michael Forrestall: That makes the hon.
member Canada's No. 1 chicken.


M. Ervin Pringle: I get it without making an application.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, when emotional matters such as one's concept of Canadian citizenship are being discussed we often get ludicrous situations which can become very tense. I do not think that they add anything to what the committee is trying to determine. What we are trying to do as reasonable men and one reasonable woman-


An hon. Member:: She is always reasonable.


Frank Howard: Yes, the woman in this House is always reasonable, as my colleague says. I wish the Minister of Justice had accepted some of her suggestions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: But that is another matter. Here we are trying to deal with the rights of people in a democratic society to elect their government and their Members of Parliament. That, basically, is what we are concerned about. We are trying to define the restrictions that shall pertain to the right to vote. For example, in the past we have said that the right to vote should be restricted to those who are 21 years of age and over. We have now determined to lower the voting age to 18. My friend, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, made a proposition to the committee a while ago which was not accepted. In view of our history, we thought his suggestion was correct and that it would preserve rights which people had. But it was not accepted. That does not mean that we shall blandly reject everything else presented to the committee because an idea which we suggested in the first instance was not accepted.
As I said, I have been partial to the idea that those who have been resident here for one year with landed immigrant status should be allowed to vote. I chose one year because that period applies to British subjects other than Canadian citizens. I believe that the one year provision is also contained in the Citizenship Act. I am very partial to the idea that people who have lived in Canada for one year, have become permanent residents-to the extent that we can interpret what "permanent" means-have obeyed our laws, paid their taxes and assumed their other responsibilities should be given the right to vote.
Canada Elections Act
They are denied that right by the provisions of the Citizenship Act unless, after a residence period of five years, they become Canadian citizens. I am partial to the idea of allowing these people to vote after they have been here for one year, that is, between that period when they have been here for one year and when they may apply for their citizenship papers after residence of five years. But simply because I am partial to that concept and some colleagues of mine are partial to other concepts relating to people's rights does not mean that I would not endorse or accept suggestions by other hon. members about the fundamental and basic right to vote.
We are concerned about equality. I would much rather have our concepts of equality expanding than restricted. As a nation we are concerned about equality. I do not think any one of us in this House is any less proud of being a Canadian simply because we lack a piece of paper, with a picture on it, which says you are a Canadian. Although we may not all endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, you must remember that we are not concerned about partisan matters but about fundamental rights. As an hon. member said, we must approach this question, from the reasonable point of view. If we were unwilling to do so we would automatically reject the proposition of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra on the ground that it not on all four fours with the concept that other members of the committee have about the fundamental right which we are discussing.
We think-I am speaking on behalf of myself and a number of my colleagues-that although the hon. member's suggestion is not as generous as other suggestions we endorsed and which were rejected, we ought to approach this matter as reasonable men. We ought not to take positions that will be unwieldy and will embrace all the points raised. As far as we are concerned, we support and will vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. We will do so because we think it has merit and because, as reasonable men, we are looking for something that is acceptable and is not clouded with emotion, as some of these questions are. The question of whether a piece of paper with a picture on it ought to confer a special privilege that somebody who is not a Canadian citizen ought not to have, is a question that is surrounded by emotion.

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I will not be talking about licences or citizenship certificates. I can tell my hon. friend for Cochrane that I own a Canadian citizenship certificate. It is four times larger than the one he has, and I paid only half what he paid because I obtained it years ago. But I will not let anyone suggest that I am four times a better Canadian than he is, or that he is half as good a Canadian as I am.
I have had the feeling at times, as we have discussed this amendment, that perhaps we are seeking to do through the Elections Act what should more properly be done through the Citizenship Act. That has troubled me a little. I have been for a long time convinced that the Citizenship Act needs amending. Its provisions respecting the period of residence are most in need of amendment, as I think my hon. friend from Saint-Denis said this morning. Since we are trying to be as reasonable as the hon. member for Skeena sometimes is, I will not speak against this amendment merely because it is proposed by my hon. friend from Vancouver Quadra, but there are some things about it that trouble me.
I still feel this is an exercise which some people in this country could and would, I fear, regard as an act of bad faith. If I were talking about American constitutional law I would refer to the Bill of Rights and to the passing of ex post facto legislation. The amendment reaches back and strikes those people who came to this country some time ago. It now tells them of requirements which, at the time of their arrival here, they were told they did not need. To that extent it is ex post facto law, and to that extent it is reaching back retroactively and changing something. That is what I find repugnant about it. It is an act of bad faith. I fear it will create two classes in this country. There will be those who will go through the formula which this amendment imposes on them in order to get the vote-something which they had before-and there will be those who will not do it. It will not be a distinction between those with a state and the stateless; it will be a distinction between those with the vote and the voteless. At a given time they all came out here with the same rights, not with reference to citizenship-it is wrong for us to say that-but with reference to the election right and with reference to the right to vote.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Whether there are 100,000, 200,000, 500,000 or one million is not the question. The number is immaterial. The question is whether
[Mr. Howard (Skeena). 1
it is right or wrong, just or unjust. Incidentally, the number is quite large. I was impressed by a report of the Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature. It referred to the number of people who had come to that province in the years mentioned in this discussion. Because it has the impact of retroactivity, because it can be construed as withdrawing that which decent people were honourably given, and because it can conceivably set up distinctions among people who came here without distinctions one against the other, this is not the best way to approach it. As we move down the line, I think from what we have left the recommendation in the bill is to be preferred to this.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make just a few remarks on some comments that have been made. I feel the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra meets the situation, namely, that we are in a transitional period toward Canadian-ism. I take exception to the hon. member who said that British subjects contributed and fought as Canadians. They contributed and fought as British subjects. They were given this special right or privilege to vote. In essence, we are not taking that away from them. We are in a period of transition where it will be necessary for them to become Canadian citizens in order to have this right and privilege. I asked myself which is the greater act of bad faith, the kind of legislation now proposed or the act of bad faith by the British subject who comes to this country, earns his livelihood and does not pay us the respect of taking out Canadian citizenship.
I do not think we are looking at two classes of citizens. We are moving through a transitional period where Canadian citizens will have the right to vote. I am a little unhappy that the Canadian Citizenship Act was not amended in advance of this act. If it had been, we would have been able to vote a little more intelligently on this piece of legislation. I have my own point of view in so far as the Canadian Citizenship Act is concerned. I agree with the hon. member for Skeena that there are many instances of people who came to this country, paid their taxes and reared their families, and do not have the right to vote. Others have been given the special privilege of voting because they happened to be born in Australia, Great Britain or some other British Commonwealth country. For this reason I support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
June 22, 1970


Mr.   Malle@: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment briefly on some of the arguments that have already been voiced.
As I said during the debate on the amendment introduced by the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), I feel that we are discussing something which in itself is beyond argument: one should be a Canadian to be entitled to vote in Canada. In my opinion, this should not even be questioned, it should be accepted, period.
It is rather curious that the right to vote of certain Canadians is not acknowledged. For instance, we are still reluctant to grant the right to vote to the first inhabitants of the country, the Indians. This right is given to aliens before native people. If having to prove that one is a Canadian citizen before being allowed to vote seems extremely hard to those who are British subjects, it certainly amounts to belittling Canadian citizenship. Why not take it calmly and simply take out Canadian citizenship?
Why should a British subject hesitate to become a Canadian citizen?
This is a completely abnormal attitude. Therefore, I would be in favour of proposing a new amendment which would not make any exception and would grant that right to Canadians only.
It has been argued that some people were in the Canadian or British armed forces, that they fought for the country, for freedom. In that case, would all Canadians who served in Europe be entitled to vote in each of those countries? That is ridiculous. If the fact of having fought in a world war enabled someone to vote, then we could vote in all the countries of the world.
Let us make it a requirement that to be an elector in Canada, one must be a Canadian citizen. It is as simple as that.


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words about this amendment. As I said when speaking on the previous amendment, I am talking about the principle involved. Quite frankly, I do not see any difference between the principle of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and the principle of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Matane. The only difference is that there is a time
Canada Elections Act
limit imposed. To those who spoke against the amendment of the hon. member for Matane, including the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, I point out that I do not understand how in principle they can swallow the sugar, sweetness and superficial logic of the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
I return to the basic question involved in this discussion, which has occupied quite a bit of time today. Perhaps that is a good thing. It has started to open avenues of thought. There has been an exchange of views. This exchange has been healthy, rather than smothering, because we do not always have the opportunity to express ourselves. One element that has not been mentioned in this debate regarding the British subject voting in Canada is reciprocity. Although many of us will not go to England, Australia or any of the other Commonwealth countries, there is that element to be considered. I will not waste much time on that aspect of the matter.


Mr. Ouellel:: There are only six.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The member for Papineau again speaks from the repository of his brain when he sits in his seat. I ask him to repeat that verbal contribution.


André Ouellet: I said that only six countries out of 26 have this reciprocity. Of this number only three are of major importance- Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. The others are not of the same size as Canada in terms of population.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am glad the hon. member for Papineau contributed those few remarks, and I hope he will elaborate on them later in connection with this or some other subject. I do not intend to come to that question for a while. I am not stressing the reciprocal element. I qualified my remarks on that.
I would just point out that this question is not quite as simple as everyone waving a Canadian flag and saying they are good Canadian federalists or nationalists, people who claim to be great Canadian nationalists from sea to sea, speaking both languages. There is the element of reciprocal recognition in six countries, as the hon. member pointed out. Three of these, he says, are important countries. The number involved here, as my hon. friend from Hillsborough says, is not important. The number is irrelevant to me. I do not care whether there are 500,000, one

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
million or 50,000. It is the principle involved. There is one principle at the reciprocal end of this recognition, I do not intend to develop this aspect of the matter any further.
I come back to what I said earlier with regard to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Matane. There is an elementary principle involved here. Everyone should be cognizant of it and respect it. My hon. friend from Hillsborough talks about ex post facto legislation. I call it retroactive legislation. Generally, retroactive legislation is bad. There are some special circumstances, as the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin mentioned earlier, in which it might be necessary. I think of the proposals introduced on budget nights, proposals such as were made to deal with the situation involving Denison Mines. But in general, retroactive legislation is bad, and retroactive legislation affecting the rights of individuals is odious. A legislature should be wary of trespassing in areas where fundamental rights are involved.
There are many in this House, and I might be among their number, who question whether in times gone by a special class should have been acknowledged. But that is irrelevant to the discussion today because there is, in fact, a special situation existing. As the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra agrees, a special situation came into effect under the terms of the Citizenship Act of 1941. Are we going to find the hon. member for Matane, the hon. member for Saint-Denis or the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra bringing forward amendments to the Citizenship Act, in the next session of Parliament, seeking to get rid of this special class? If we extend some of the logic to which we have listened this afternoon, they might as well. I myself might think that it was not a bad idea. I qualify my words very quickly. If I could get hon. members apposite, the hon. member for Cochrane or the hon. member for Saint-Denis to agree to the logical extension of that principle, I would come right back to the fundamental rights which have sprung from the time French-speaking Canadians and Englishspeaking Canadians got together. That is the basic element involved in this clause.
I do not intend to wave the Union Jack. I respect it as part of our tradition, but I am glad we now have a flag of our own. I do not want to be sidetracked by a red herring. I never was against it. I think that debate overshot the mark by many, many days. But that debate is past. I am going back to the fundamental rights of English-speaking Canadians

and French-speaking Canadians. I say to my French-speaking friends that if they extend some of their logic today about removing special classes, removing special rights, forgetting about the past completely, I say "Hooray"-we shall go on to a day of reality when we can sit down together, English-speaking Canadians, French-speaking Canadians, Ukrainian-speaking Canadians, Polish-speaking Canadians and Italian-speaking Canadians, in a constitutional conference room and draw up a constitution corresponding to the realities of today.
I would very much like the hon. member for Saint-Denis to make a speech on the constitution in this chamber at some stage in the life of this Parliament and say, "Let's get right back to square one". Why not use the reasoning he has propounded today in connection with this amendment to clause 14(3) when he declared there should not be special situations or special rights? He invited us in effect to forget about special classes and special rights and start on a brand new piece of paper with a revision of the constitution in which no account was taken of the special rights of English-speaking Canadians or French-speaking Canadians. Inherent in his reasoning was an appeal to take the Canadian context, the Canadian mosaic as it exists today, bearing in mind that there are today more new Canadians from other ethnic groups than either French-speaking or English-speaking Canadians.
If the hon. member really wants to accept that principle, I hope he will make the constitutional speech I have suggested, and I hope he is as active in propagating this point of view as was the hon. member for Papineau, who has evidently been travelling round Quebec describing how federalism works. The hon. member for Matane, when he was travelling around Quebec, described what federalism meant to a lot of CGEPs. That was a laudable effort. I do not know if it confused them. In light of the vote in the Quebec election there might be some discussion as to how much of the message was sold. But the hon. member may have done an interesting job.
Be that as it may, if he follows through his logic of today, forgetting about the pre-conditions to this whole institution, the conditions which made the two races come together, and the fact of Canadian life together with the three elements, English-speaking, Frenchspeaking and new Canadians of other origins, we had better look at the whole constitution again, we had better look at the official lan-
June 22, 1970

guages act again and start out, as I said, with a brand new piece of paper. The reality of a country, the reality of a constitution and the realities of people who come together in a country such as Canada, which stretches from sea to sea, is that it is not possible to start out in a vacuum. We Eire bound to go back and see what our roots are; we are bound to go back and see where our people were, where our descendants were, where the graves are. It is necessary to go back to find out where you have populated, where you have prospected and where you have had some dreams. You do not start out in a vacuum. Yet today some hon. members appear to forget so much of our history. I have Irish blood in my veins, and I shall not necessarily wave the Union Jack because some people in Ireland, where my ancestors came from many centuries ago, do not think the Union Jack is all that great.
I am not proselytizing for the Union Jack; I am not proselytizing for the English tongue as compared with the French tongue. I am proselytizing, I am preaching, I am philosophizing about what makes a country tick-and you do not make a country tick when you have one-eyed vision. You do not make a country tick when you have a patch on one eye and then start to go blind in the other. I do not question the motives of any hon. member who has spoken today in this most interesting discussion. It has been a basic exchange. I say in all sincerity that you cannot take a constitution in a vacuum; you cannot start in Canada today and forget about everything in the past; you cannot concentrate on one element only, for example on British subjects, forgetting completely not only the English-speaking people who will one day come to Canada once we pass a law which affects them but the British subjects, the Commonwealth subjects who came to Canada under the law as it stood and as it stands today until we pass a new one.
This question involves fundamental rights, right or wrong; and I suppose there is considerable room for debate there among hon. members. Once we start taking away fundamental rights retroactively, whether they are language rights, voting rights or citizenship rights, we establish in this chamber a precedent which can come back like a boomerang and affect the rights of any minority anywhere in this land. It is for this reason I feel so strongly that many hon. members who are sincere, and who hold their convictions as strongly as I hold mine, are misguided. They
Canada Elections Act
are dealing here with a right. Some members opposite, and even some members on this side of the House, may feel it is not an important right; they may feel that the numbers involved are not important. Again I come back to what I said earlier: the numbers involved, the degree of importance of the right, do not interest me at all. It is the principle involved. I agree with what the hon. member for Sarnia said about the citizenship legislation. I agree that some confusion may have arisen in our minds in this area. I am not interested in the citizenship question. I direct my remarks to clause 14(3) which is under discussion.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
If I can be a little political at this point, I find it passing strange that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, whom I understand is the co-ordinator of committees of this House, should be the member, among all others who feel strongly on this subject, to bring before this committee an amendment which destroys the unanimous recommendation of the Standing committee on privileges and elections. This it does as effectively as does the amendment moved by the hon. member for Matane, except that the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has a five-year reprieve. How the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra can reconcile his position as co-ordinator of committees in this House with his position as the member who will cut the guts out of clause 14(3) today-


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Certainly.


Grant Deachman: Is the hon. member suggesting that my right to move amendments in this House ought to be abridged in some form?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If I had my way, your right to sit here would be abridged in a good many ways.


Grant Deachman: Then you run against me in the next election and you might have that privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There was nothing personal in that remark. It was just a statement of opinion made on the floor of the House. I would not say it in the corridors outside. As far as the question was concerned, I think it is passing strange, in view of all the fuss and talk

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
about participation in committees, about members involving themselves in committees and committees holding 14 meetings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that once a committee has finally reviewed this bill the co-ordinator of committees in the House becomes the hatchetman to cut the guts out of this clause under discussion.
I appreciate that the hon. member has every right in this House, as I have, to make speeches and to move amendments. Nevertheless, of all members in the House who feel strongly about the bill, it is the hon. member who cuts out the guts of clause 14(3) by his sugar-coated amendment. The hon. member for Matane should feel very pleased that his point of view is being adopted by some members who felt otherwise in earlier votes. In effect, his amendment has been stolen or has been converted to the use of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, because the effect of both amendments is exactly the same. I see the hon. member for Matane shaking his head. He knows of which I speak. Certainly that is the basic intent of this amendment.
It is not on grounds of reciprocity nor of past history that I take my stand; it is because I seriously believe that retroactive legislation is bad. Retroactive legislation that affects the rights of people is even worse. Clause 14(3) will affect a certain body of people in the land. Whether or not they are citizens is another point. Many of these people have been voting in Canada for up to 50 years, and there may be 500,000 of them. If this bill is passed in its present form, the rights they now have had will be taken away. I say that instead of advancing the cause of unity in this country, this bill will disenfranchise those who have enjoyed the franchise up until now.
I do not want this issue to become confused with the position of newcomers to Canada. I agree that there should not be three or four classes of Canadians given certain privileges, if this can be avoided. There are several classes of Canadians today. For example, we have British subjects who came to Canada and are covered under the old law. Englishspeaking and French-speaking Canadians have certain rights under other laws. Then I admit there is that anomalous group of British subjects who are covered under the existing law. But until Parliament changes the law that applies to newcomers to Canada in the future, it would be a mistake to pass a bill that would disenfranchise and adversely affect the rights of so many Canadians who have enjoyed the franchise heretofore.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this amendment should be voted on until someone on the government side satisfies me, at least, of its legality. In the next two or three minutes I should like to direct my remarks to the right of the committee to accept an amendment which, in effect, in a legal sense demands the amendment of other law. I am not learned in the law. As a matter of fact, I am not very learned in many matters. But it does seem to me that there is a serious point involved here and I am wondering why the minister who is piloting the legislation through the committee, or for that matter any other member of the government, has not bothered to address himself to it.
Before the question is put, preferably when we reconvene at eight o'clock this evening, it would serve the members of the committee well, as well as assist in the task ahead of us, if the minister during the supper hour would obtain a legal opinion on whether what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has proposed is indeed within our capacity to accept.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question?


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To what other law is the hon. member referring?


J. Michael Forrestall: Do we not have a citizenship act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: This amendment would not affect citizenship in any way. Is there some other law to which the hon. member is referring, apart from his apparent feeling that this amendment relates to the citizenship act?


J. Michael Forrestall: I do not want to seem facetious, but this amendment is like "Mission Impossible". It it self-destructive in five years. I do not want to destroy the lives of 500,000 people who have protection under another act passed by this House. If they do not have protection, will the minister stand up and say so? Is the House Leader telling me that there is no other act in the country dealing with citizenship?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There is a citizenship act, but the amendment does not affect that act. Indeed, the clause we are dealing with does not affect the right of any Canadian citizen at all. The rights of all Canadian citizens are those determined by the Canadian Citizenship Act. This amend-

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act ment neither adds to nor subtracts from the rights of a Canadian citizen.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, when we rose for dinner at six o'clock I was wondering out loud about the effect of the amendment on the status of those people who came to our country prior to 1941. Apart from adding the further comment that I would find it a matter of personal regret if the members of the committee sought in any way to make life a little more difficult for those people who have been here for many years, I would bow to the wisdom of the committee. I do not believe it is a right step. As my colleague from Annapolis Valley and others indicated earlier, any motion which reaches into the past to deny rights that have been given must in some way constitute a breach of faith. With the assurance that this will in no way affect the status of those people who were dealt with in 1941 or who came to this country prior to that time, we are prepared to allow the amendment to come to a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could just satisfy the hon. member in that regard. I advanced an opinion before the dinner hour regarding the extension of the qualification in respect of British subjects other than Canadian citizens, and I might explain that turn of phrase by pointing out that of course under our citizenship act all Canadian ci izens are by definition British subjects. This amendment does not in any way affect that status. The fact that the right to vote is given or withheld under this act does not in any way change their basic status as Canadian citizens. They are required to look to the citizenship act and to their status under it as to whether or not they are Canadian citizens, British subjects or aliens. The giving or wilhholding of the right to vote does not affect that status in any way. By way of analogy I point out that our friend the Chief Electoral Officer is disqualified from voting in an election. The fact that Her Majesty's judges are not entitled to vote in an election does not make them any less Canadian citizens. In a certain number of
limited cases there has been the removal of the qualification to vote, but that does not affect citizenship status.
There is one thing I think it might be worthwhile referring to because the question was inferentially raised by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek this afternoon. That is whether or not there would be difficulty for someone who is in the situation where he was not born in Canada but is deemed to be a naturalized Canadian by reason of the Canadian Citizenship Act. The question is whether such a person would in any way require proof upon this rather difficult legal question of citizenship. Certainly the electoral act does not put this difficulty in this way. I draw the attention of the committee to clause 45 generally and subsections 4, and on, at page 112. This clause makes it perfectly clear that a person appearing at a poll and seeking the right to vote cannot be required to produce a birth certificate, naturalization papers or anything else. He can be required to swear an affidavit of qualification to vote, in form 43. He is not required to produce the kind of documents we were talking about earlier today.
In short, Canadian citizenship for the purpose of this act is as interpreted by the Canadian Citizenship Act and regulations. In some cases it may involve a difficult combination of law and fact as to whether a person is a Canadian citizen both for the purposes of getting a citizenship certificate and for voting in an election. That matter is not affected either favourably or unfavourably by this bill. It is not affected either way by the stipulations in the Canada Elections Act or in particular by the one we are debating now.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Deachman) agreed to: Yeas, 44; nays, 8.


James Hugh Faulkner: I declare the amendment carried.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, in the preliminary skirmish on this bill and this particular clause, which has consumed a considerable amount of the time of the committee, I indicated that I would propose an amendment. The reason I am disturbed by some of the amendments being proposed is that they are restrictive in their application of the right of the franchise, rather than expansive. Hitherto, in the progress of Canadian democ-

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
racy toward the universal franchise every change that has been made in the Canada Elections Act has been to broaden the base of the voting privilege rather than to narrow that base or to become restrictive in the application of that right.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The amendment I was thinking of at that time was in the following words, and it is found on page 8259 of Hansard. It is an amendment to subclause 3 of clause 14, and reads as follows:
(3) Every British subject, Commonwealth citizen and citizen of France who has landed immigrant status and who has lived continuously in Canada for a period of one year following the granting of landed immigrant status is deemed to be qualified as an elector.
The thinking at that stage of the debate was that an amendment of this kind would encourage arrivals into Canada to take out landed immigrant status with a view to eventually becoming citizens. Also, as I indicated when we were discussing this matter last Wednesday, I thought that an amendment of this kind would reinforce the values and the traditions which hold the Commonwealth together.
I have been interested to note the comments of the Prime Minister since his return from the Pacific rim tour. He gained a fresh appreciation of the importance and significance of the Commonwealth association. As it has emerged in our modern world, it is an association that has no formal constitutional basis and yet is one of the most meaningful international groupings to be found anywhere in our sadly divided planet. The forces that hold the Commonwealth together are traditions and values that have emerged largely out of the influences that have come from the mother of Parliament at Westminster.
As I listen to the discussions in the House it becomes obvious that the government wants to remove the traditional voting rights of British subjects who are living in Canada, which automatically means that it wants to downgrade the rights and privileges of people coming to Canada who have Commonwealth citizenship status. To my way of thinking this is a retrograde step and, as I have already indicated, it is restrictive rather than expansive.
Another comment that I would like to make is that by broadening the special privileges that have been granted to British subjects and Commonwealth citizens living in Canada, we were encouraging a greater degree of par-

ticipation and involvement in the whole governmental and democratic process. Having listened to the debate, and particularly in light of the amendment which has just been passed by the government majority, I shall have to change my tack somewhat and I will move an amendment to the amended clause 14 by adding to that clause a subclause 4.
During the course of the debate there was some objection to the original form of the amendment that I proposed in that it marked out special classes of people. It seems to me that it is the general sentiment of the House that the time has perhaps come when we might apply the privilege of voting at an earlier stage, on the road to their becoming fully-fledged citizens of Canada, to all new arrivals with landed immigrant status. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished, and certainly it is in tune with the tendency in all previous amendments to the Canada Elections Act to extend the principle of voting universality and put it on a broader base. With this in mind I want to move the addition of the following subclause 4 to clause 14 which, in view of the even more stringent, restrictive amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-which has just been passed-narrows the voting base almost along the same line as that proposed by the hon. member for Matane. The exception is that it gives it a five-year hoist when the same principle would apply. Therefore, I move the following amendment:
Every person who has landed immigrant status and who has lived continuously in Canada for a period of three years following the granting of landed immigrant status is deemed to he qualified as an elector.
In putting forward this amendment I am aware that the special privilege that was granted to residents of Canada who are British subjects qualified them to vote after one year. Perhaps that is an arbitrary figure, but in light of all the considerations involved in the matter I think at this stage, and in view of the fact that we are making this provision all-inclusive so as to apply to all landed immigrants, the three-year figure would be more appropriate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think I originated the other evening, part of the concept herein contained, but for my own part I cannot possibly support the proposition just put forward by my friend the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it gives to people who are neither Canadian citizens
June 22, 1970

nor British subjects a preferred class status over and above Canadian citizens and British subjects. As a consequence of the amendment which we have just passed, if British subjects did not become Canadian citizens within five years of the coming into force of the act, they would cease to have the right to vote. The amendment before us simply and unalterably says that every person who has landed immigrant status-which, as I read it, means immigrants from whatever country-and who has lived in Canada for three years shall have forever the right to vote without taking any steps whatever to become a Canadian citizen.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
It is on that ground that I must oppose the suggestion contained in the amendment. I am very partial to the idea that people of landed immigrant status during the period of time that is arbitrarily selected, whether it be one year or three years as is contemplated here, and the period of time defined under the Canadian Citizenship Act-which now requires that a person be here for five years before he can even apply to become a citizen-be qualified as electors, but they lose that qualification if they do not move as quickly as possible to become Canadian citizens and in fact become Canadian citizens. That is a proposition to which I am partial, and I had drafted an amendment to present to the committee. I did not proceed with it, partly because of the immediately preceding amendment that has passed and partly because of the reaction of the committee to the amendment of my hon. friend from Regi-na-Lake Centre relating to British subjects, which was preliminary to the idea that people other than British subjects should also come within the ambit of the law. But they would lose the right to vote if after a certain period of time, in one case determined by the Canada Elections Act and in the other by the provisions of the Canadian Citizenship Act, they did not come citizens. The treatment afforded the amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre led me to believe that the proposition I had been advancing would not be accepted. The committee had already rejected the concept with respect to British subjects.
If the committee had accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, I would have taken that as support for the idea that people, during the period they are prevented from becoming Canadian citizens, should have the opportuni-
Canada Elections Act
ty to vote, but once that period of time had passed and they did not become citizens they should lose that privilege. For these reasons I did not move the amendment I had originally conceived.
The amendment now before the committee has no cognizance whatever of the concept of Canadian citizenship. It just says that anybody from any country may for the rest of his life continue to elect members to the House of Commons. The further presumption is that he will be eligible to run as a candidate and to be elected, which is stretching the point beyond all possible acceptance.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Dinsdale) negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 50.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall subclause 3 as amended carry?


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word on this principle, if I am still in order, so that the public will have knowledge of why a particular point of view is held and why some members of the committee voted as they did on various recommendations. For my part I feel, having listened to the speeches of a number of hon. members, that many hon. members started with the wrong premise. If that was the case, then of course it would be difficult to arrive at the correct conclusion.
Running through the speeches of many hon. members I saw a thread of supposition that the act, as it previously stood, represented a particular privilege so far as English people were concerned. If that were the case I would immediately vote for the elimination of that section from the Canada Elections Act. The concept of this clause is entirely different. I think it is an honourable one to which all fair-minded Canadians could quickly subscribe. The question is whether people who have lived under the same type of democracy that we enjoy, and who are familiar with our parliamentary system of government, should not have the right, on coming to Canada, of exercising the franchise a little sooner than emigrants from a country with an entirely different type of governmental system, even one with a dictatorship. That is the principle which the act tried to designate. In most cases it is a mutual right.
I do not think this right exists because of any international agreement in the Common-

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
wealth. It is one that Canadians enjoy in a number of Commonwealth countries. It is perhaps true that not too many Canadians emigrate to New Zealand, Australia or Great Britain; but a few do, and they would be recognized in those countries as special cases, as persons who had familiarity with the type of parliamentary democracy which is common to most Commonwealth countries. Many members of this House of Commons are members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is a body of elected representatives from most of the Commonwealth countries, one of whose aims is to safeguard our common heritage, to try by discussion to solve our common problems and to develop a type of internationalism within the Commonwealth. I think that is an honourable and reasonable aim. But by the action we have taken we are again taking ourselves away from the international association known as the Commonwealth, and we are doing it for what I believe are the wrong reasons. In an age when we should work, wherever practical, toward international understanding we are returning to narrow nationalism.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: For that reason I think this amendment, and even the amendment in the bill if it had been left that way, is a retrograde step. I think the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre would have been a slight improvement to the bill, but a number of the other amendments would not.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, that for the wrong reasons we are doing what I believe is the wrong thing. For the reasons I have stated, I would have preferred to have Canadians of whatever background realize that they have this slight advantage, this token advantage of being members of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has a common heritage and it is still a force for good in a very confused and chaotic world. Some people would ask what the Commonwealth means. I stand subject to correction, but I do not recall any two Commonwealth countries going to war against each other. It is true that India and Pakistan almost did, but I believe the fact that they were members of a Commonwealth was a restraining influence. It is true that there have been civil wars within the Commonwealth, but I believe it is still a force for good, internationally. Membership should not
[Mr. MacLean.l
only be of benefit to a nation in the international sense, but it should bring benefit to the individual citizens of the Commonwealth.
In the debate some members seemed to indicate that we were giving citizenship to a certain favoured class of people by allowing them to vote. That is not the case. There is no connection between the right to vote and the other privileges of citizenship. These were benefits which Canadians enjoyed and which other countries unilaterally will now take away from Canadians although they may apply in only a few cases. No doubt they will be taken away when we start this trend toward the narrow nationalism which the bill proposes.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall clause 14, subclause 3 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As
amended.
Subclause 3 as amended agreed to.
On clause 14, subclause 4-Disqualifications.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have only one copy of the amendment which I intend to move to subclause 4 because I handed out the copies I had prepared on Tuesday of last week when I wanted to give some prior indication of it to the committee. The sense of my amendment is shown at page 8201 of Hansard for June 16 and it relates to subclause 4 paragraph (e) which reads as follows:
every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in any penal institution for the commission of any offence;
My amendment seeks to remove paragraph (e) from subclause 4. If it is carried, I assume the easy and automatic amendment would be made to the following paragraphs simply by relettering them. I did not put that in the amendment because it is consequential and should flow automatically. I do not anticipate any difficulty in that regard.
The purpose of the amendment is to give people in jail the right to vote in federal elections. Paragraph (g) of subclause 4 would exclude people guilty of corrupt or illegal practices relating to the electoral law. Clause 80 of the bill also covers this category, so that people who have committed an offence against the Elections Act would not have the
June 22. 1970

right to vote, whether or not they were serving time in a penal institution. But all other classes would qualify provided they met the qualifications of being 18 years of age, Canadian citizens or British subjects not disqualified by the five-year rule which the committee has just passed.
I am not sure of the history of the proscription against inmates of penal institutions voting in federal elections. It probably stems from the time when the inmate was totally removed from society and deprived of every vestige of right. There was no concept of parole, rehabilitation or anything of that sort-just the concept of incarceration for the term of his sentence. Once the sentence was served, his rights were reinstated, but during incarceration there was no privilege of correspondence, visiting with friends or anything of an educational or rehabilitative nature. Probably this prohibition in the Elections Act stems from that early approach to penology when inmates of jails were simply forgotten until it became time for their release.
Today we have a more enlightened and generous approach to people who offend against the law. We have the concept of parole, which is a stepping-stone to the complete rehabilitation of the individual. We have the concept of probation and the concept which has just passed this House, of expunging a criminal record after a certain period of time. Within the penitentiary the inmate has the right to correspond with his Member of Parliament and his immediate family and, subject to the approval of officials, to correspond with friends or with a lawyer on legal matters.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Inmates of penitentiaries can also see television programs brought to them from all over the western world. They learn about the current news and read newspapers and magazines. Inmates of penitentiaries are now given passes which allow them out for two or three days at a time. They may go to the downtown area or elsewhere to look for employment they wish to take up on leaving the penitentiary. There is parole and compassionate leave.
In addition, some inmates before they are released serve the remainder of their time, not on parole but in an institutional structure which in some parts of Canada is a house like many similar houses in the downtown area. An inmate may leave the house, go to work and return to it that night. He is allowed more extended freedom than in jail, and this pre-
Canada Elections Act
pares him for his release. A whole raft of new attitudes is showing up toward inmates of penitentiaries. People are more ready to admit them back into the social stream so that they may participate with the rest of the country in social activities in which the rest of society is engaged.
The purpose of the amendment I am putting forward is primarily rehabilitative. It is to involve the inmate, while he is in jail, in one of the processes of our democracy that deals with a social order of things from which the inmate has dropped out. Because he has become cynical about them and rejected them, he has got into difficulties and landed in jail. I think we ought to take this further step in giving the inmate an opportunity to participate in our electoral process and to choose a Member of Parliament who will have authority and jurisdiction over the penitentiary structure in which the inmate is housed.
I think, secondly, that the mere fact that here we have established a group electors will in itself tend to cause political parties to make a more meaningful determination of penological matters. Candidates would tend more readily to visit penitentiaries in their constituencies. If they did it for no reason except the garnering of votes, something would rub off on them and on the political party they support. Our concepts about penological matters would more truthfully reflect the actual situation in jails. At present we develop our political policies for penitentiary matters in an atmosphere that is far removed from that of the actual prison structure. We seem to develop these policies without really knowing what it is we are developing policies about. Giving inmates a vote would have a secondary effect.
May I draw a parallel. They used to say that the people who were excluded from the vote were people in mental hospitals, those in jail, and Indians. A few years ago we took the Indians off the proscribed list and everyone, including the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo, will agree that since then political parties and candidates have paid more attention to Indian people and Indian affairs, even where that has been done for political reasons-and I am not saying that it has been. Actually, I think there was a great deal of altruistic concern about Indians. The point is that candidates and parties began to be more interested in Indian affairs. I think something similar would happen with respect to inmates of penitentiaries.

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
I know that I ought to have raised this matter before the Standing Committee, but for some reason which escapes my mind at the moment I was not able to appear before the committee and raise it. However, I do not think that should diminish the force of what I am trying to say, and it should not diminish the consideration that the committee will give to this matter.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move:
That clause 14 be amended by deleting paragraph (e) from subclause 4.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. I have found his statements extremely interesting. Has he any statistics showing whether similar provisions are in force in other countries in the free world? I hope he will deal with this matter so that we will know whether we are pioneering this sort of thing, or following others.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I can only say this to my hon. friend for Hamilton West. If we are pioneering in this field, good for us. I do not say that personally. If we are following the example of others, if other democratic nations have adopted this course and we are following suit, again I say, good for us. Frankly, I do not know what they are doing in other countries; I have not examined this matter. I have only looked at the situation in Canada. We are revising the Elections Act for the benefit of Canadians, and the Parliament of Canada must deal with the Elections Act. I hope it will also deal with the matter of penitentiaries.
I could find the answer to the hon. gentleman's question very quickly. Later this evening I might consult Mr. Hamel, the Chief Electoral Officer, who may have knowledge of this matter. That is the best way I can answer the hon. gentleman's question. I do not know what is happening in other jurisdictions. I am not too concerned about it because I believe we ought to develop law which is suitable for this country. If such provisions exist in other countries, I say good for them, whether we follow suit, as I hope we shall, or not.
I have discussed this question with Mr. Hamel and with Mr. MacLeod, who was at that time Commissioner of Penitentiaries. He spoke to me shortly before resigning as commissioner. I do not think that lessens the value of What he said to me. I wanted to discuss with these two gentlemen the procedural aspects of this matter as it fell within their respective jurisdictions. Mr. 
Hamel said-I hope I am not misrepresenting our conversation-that there would be no trouble so far as he could see with respect to the procedural aspects of enumeration, revision on election day, etc. As a matter of fact, it might be more easy to enumerate in a penitentiary than in many city communities; the penitentiary authorities would have a fairly accurate record of those qualified to vote.


An hon. Member:: Unless some were out flooding the rink.


Frank Howard: Quite; unless somebody was flooding the skating rink. I think the list of electors would be fairly easy to obtain, even if one or two might not be home, so to speak, at the time of enumeration.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We could leave them to the posse!


Frank Howard: One question that Mr. Hamel raised, and which has crossed my mind, is this. The voters' list is a public document and some people in jail may not want their names to be included on any such public document. Of course, their names no doubt appeared in the newspapers when they were first sent to prison, but most of us hope that these matters are quickly forgotten. We want to preserve the integrity of the individual. Once a man has been incarcerated, his identity should not be disseminated throughout the community. I have spoken to a few people in penitentiaries about this matter, and that is their feeling. On the other hand, I received a favourable response from people about the idea I am trying to promote, which I think is very heartening. Some people have said that not everyone need be included on the published voters' list. It is the right of the individual to decide whether he wants to be registered along with other people in society. I realize that there are greater pressures on the person in jail, from the point of view of whether he shall be registered or not, then there are on the person outside jail. There is another matter that we ought to be concerned about. Subclause 4(f) points out that every person who is restrained of his liberty or movement or deprived of the management of his property by reason of mental disease is prohibited from voting. I understand this is the procedure followed by people in the psychiatric field with regard to people who are in mental hospitals and thereby restrained of liberty of movement. Some of these people are permitted to leave the mental hospital for
June 22, 1970


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired, unless there is unanimous consent to allow him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: That is very kind of the committee and I express my apprecia-
Canada Elections Act
tion. I have reached the last point I want to make. It is the opinion of Mr. MacLeod that candidates of political parties visiting inmates in a penitentiary to explain their point of view must be subject to the rules of the warden and the security and administrative requirements of the institution. The candidate would be under the authority of the warden as to what he could do and where he could go. The commissioner and the warden would have the final say as to what occurred in the' institution. Any problem that may develop in that regard could be dealt with.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member has pointed out, Mr. Chairman, this; matter was not canvassed among the members of the Standing Committee. It was brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member on second reading. At that time I called it to the attention of the House and, I hope, the public to see the reaction to this particularly novel proposal. I found that amongst those I talked to there was no consensus on this point. I talked in particular to my colleagues. Their opinion was divided on this question, basically along the lines of their opinion on corrections matters generally. Speaking on behalf of the government, I cannot say that there is a collective opinion in this regard. I believe there are opinions on both sides within this group. I am not inclined to take a government position on this question but would rather leave it to the judgment of the House. I think it will be found that there are opinions on both sides.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question to the hon. member?


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena has resumed his seat. If there is the agreement of the committee, the hon. member may ask his question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether under the proposed amendment it would be possible for a prisoner to run as a candidate.


Frank Howard: Clause 20 of the bill sets out the qualifications of a candidate. As I recall it, it states that anyone who is qualified as an elector may be a candidate. According

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
to that, I would say yes, without any change in clause 20. We have not yet dealt with clause 20. The situation would be as stated by the hon. member if there is no change in that clause. An inmate in a penitentiary could be a candidate to run in an election. I did not deal with that question because I thought there might be other amendments that would need to flow from it. I was not sine of them, and therefore I left the question open. One does not presuppose the other.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could assist the committee. Clause 20 states that any person who is qualified as an elector or deemed to be qualified as an elector may be a candidate. If this disability was taken out of Clause 14, a prisoner would then be qualified to be a candidate. I could see certain interim difficulties in his taking his seat. Presumably, in the strict terms of the law he could be a candidate.
I neglected to deal with one point raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West. After consulting the Chief Electoral Officer I find that at the moment he does not have in his possession any comparative information on practices of other countries on this particular aspect of electoral law. I regret that I cannot answer the question.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support the proposal of the hon. member for Skeena. However, there are certain technical difficulties in the proposal. I wanted to ask the member some questions to see whether he could help me overcome these difficulties. I agree that the penitentiary system should be a reform and rehabilitation process; therefore, we could give the vote to those who are in peni'entiaries. However, I see real objection to inmates of a penitentiary voting as a group in the constituency wherein the penitentiary is located. These people do not have any real interest in the particular constituency in which they find themselves. They have gone to that constituency for a period of time from other communities. Their homes are in these other communities, their real interest lies there and I do not think it would be fair for several thousand people, as might well be the case, to vote in a constituency in which they had only a temporary interest.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In Kingston, for example, there are three penitentiaries-Joyceville, Kingston, the women's penitentiary, and maybe even a fourth. I do not think it would be fair for the

people who live in that constituency to have an election decided, perhaps, by individuals who come from other parts of the country. I can visualize the same problem in the St. Vincent de Paul area where there are four penitentiaries. I ask the President of the Privy Council and the hon. member for Skeena whether it might not be possible to consider setting up a system whereby the inmates could vote in their own constituencies under the proxy system, in the same way as members of the armed forces. We have not yet reached the proxy voting clause; it is clause 46 on page 117.
Another possibility would be to strike out subclause 4(f) and leave it up to the penitentiaries authorities to register the inmates through their families in their own constituencies and let them out on parole in order to vote, either on advance polling day or on polling day itself. I do not suggest this could apply to the whole of the prison population, but a certain number could be accommodated in this way. At the present time some inmates are allowed to go home for the weekend to see their families, and others may go home at Christmas and Easter. I am thinking aloud on these matters. If we could work out a system of proxy voting or temporary release to cover the situation, I would be willing to accept the proposal.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I suppose my hon. friend from Kingston would want to find out what the attitude of the inmates was to the white paper on taxation before endorsing an idea of that kind. No doubt it would be possible to adapt the special voting rules which cover others in the care of the federal government so as to extend the same privilege to inmates of institutions. It must be said, of course, that not all inmates are in federal institutions. Those whose sentence is less than two years are in provincial custody, and arrangements would have to be made in that regard. Some fairly substantial amendments would be required to the special voting rules if this proposal were to be accepted. Unless those amendments are made, this group of electors would have to be dealt with in the same way as any other group of institutional electors; the poll would be set up in an institution and their votes would be counted in the constituency in which they were resident, that is, where the institution was situated.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might comment for a few moments on what the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the minister have said.
June 22, 1970

The fact that the commission has on a couple of occasions rejected the concept of an absentee system of balloting prompted me to make my proposal in its present form. I have to deal with the law as it now stands. I, too, have thought about the armed forces voting regulations which give an individual the right to choose whether to register in the constituency in which he is located or in his home constituency wherever that might be. I did not attempt to draft all the consequential amendments to the armed forces rules, knowing there was a possibility of using that system if this proposal were carried.
The President of the Privy Council has indicated that it would be possible to adapt those rules for the purpose. He told us that substantial amendments would be required. But I think he meant a large number of amendments rather than intricate amendments or amendments difficult to draft. In any event, it is not impossible to amend the armed forces regulations in this respect. I would not be partial to the idea of leaving it to the head of the institution to determine which inmates should have the opportunity to go home in order to cast their ballots. However meritorious a case might be with regard to a particular inmate, there is always the possibility that he would not desire a three-day pass. Then again, an inmate might have been transferred from a British Columbia penitentiary to St. Vincent de Paul; his home might be in Vancouver. The difficulties involved there are such that we ought not to attempt to deal with them.
I can tell the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that there are many instances in our society where large numbers of people have no particular connection with the constituency in which they are voting though they do, in fact, vote there and perhaps influence the outcome of the election. I have in mind the operations of mining camps, lumber camps, construction camps and the like in remote areas. In my own constituency a good many years ago there was a large-scale construction operation carried out for the Alumium Company of Canada which built a smelter near the community of Kitimat. At the powerhouse site, a whole chain of lakes and rivers was being dammed. The flow of the rivers was being reversed, a tunnel ten miles long was drilled through the mountain, and so on.
It was a massive project involving some 5,000 construction workers in the provincial constituency and, of course, in the federal constituency. They had the opportunity to 22478-43
Canada Elections Act
exercise their right to vote under the provincial and federal law, yet they had no connection whatever with that constituency; they had just gone there to make their stake, after which they went back south or to wherever their homes were. This is the situation in a number of ridings, so I do not think it is a situation which ought to prevent us endorsing the concept I have put forward. I know that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace would not do this. I hope that by using the armed forces rules or voting regulations and making them applicable to the situation such as I have in mind, the concern the hon. gentleman feels about the effects of a large group of voters casting their ballots in a constituency in which they have no particular interest will be alleviated. I would be far more partial to using the armed forces regulations than using the proxy system.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that the only reason which could justify, in my opinion, the wording of subclause 4 (e) of clause 14 would be a technical or practical one.
And how can it be otherwise? Indeed, when we consider that this clause applies to persons imprisoned for minor offences sometimes, and that this can impose a penalty as heavy as the loss of the right to vote, I say that practical reasons alone can explain such a disproportion between the offence and the punishment!
If it is true that the loss of the right to vote is almost the equivalent of civil death, I really would like to know on what grounds someone who is imprisoned for 48 hours, let us say, should lose his right to vote simply because he was in prison at the time of the election.
Even if the reason is a practical one, it does not hold water if we consider that this clause concerns inmates. Let us take the case of someone who is imprisoned for a few years because he has not been able to obtain bail. How will we manage, on election day, to get him to the poll or to his residence? In view of the disproportion between the offence and the penalty, I suggest that the item be allowed to stand so that the legal advisers of the committee of the whole may draft a clause allowing those who are emprisoned to vote. Moreover, I agree with the previous speaker who stated that if the situation of prisoners is so miserable it is because they do not represent a group to be reckoned with during election campaigns.

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
I therefore propose, in view of the complexity of the practical reasons for the extreme streamlining of Clause 14 (4) (e) it be allowed to stand pending a much more thorough study.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I want to give my views on the amendment proposed by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). I would like also to indicate my admiration for his generosity toward those who deliberately have chosen to live on the fringe of society.
However, I cannot approve his attitude since all through his remarks I wondered whether we had not chosen the wrong place. The hon. member has given us such a list of all the advantages granted criminals over the last few years that we may wonder whether it is not more advantageous to live on the fringe of society.
We know how criminals are treated compared to law-abiding citizens. In Canada, thousands of families are living on social welfare. Thousands of workers must live on incomes obviously inadequate and deny themselves things essential to life which prisoners find in penal institutions.
It has been reported not so long ago that the construction of the penal institution at Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, in the province of Quebec, had cost $32,000 per inmate. However, thousands of Canadian families have to live in slum dwellings which do not even belong to them and in distressing conditions, while $32,000 is available to accomodate individuals who did not want to comply with Canadian laws.
In my opinion, if we grant these people the right to choose members of Parliament, we are giving in to them a little too much.
Moreover, a comparison was established between members of the armed forces and prisoners. This is stupid. No comparison should be drawn between those who defend their country and those who destroy it. If we give prisoners the franchise, we must give it to saboteurs and traitors also.
On these grounds, I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena. The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who spoke before me is wondering what would happen in the case of a man sentenced to 48 hours in jail at the very time of an election. I would answer him that when somebody is sentenced to 48 hours in jail, the offence is not likely to be a crime but rather some petty larceny or some minor offence.

Moreover, I am sure that in such a case, a Canadian judge would have enough understanding to defer the sentence.
I do not think the present Elections Act aims at granting the right to vote to those who have deliberately chosen to be outcasts. If we make it easier for those people than for those who are law abiding citizens, I am afraid we shall have to change sides.
Such are the reasons why I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Mr. Goyer:: Mr. Chairman, the merits of the amendment moved by the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) are not easy to ascertain and, consequently, must not be taken lightly.
I believe our society now accepts the concept whereby citizens who break the law of the land are not condemned to prison to suffer any other penalty than that of being deprived of their freedom. And so, citizens who are imprisoned do not suffer any corporal punishments which ar spumed by our laws. Citizens who now break the law and are imprisoned are not, generally speaking, deprived of access to information. In fact, they have access to literature and information.
Therefore, such citizens as are imprisoned are merely deprived of their freedom of movement. And even there, practise has it that more and more the prisoners are given the right to leave the institution for short spells at regular intervals. The citizen is therefore to be rehabilitated instead of being completely removed from the normal environment, so that he might readjust himself to society after serving his term.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I therefore ask myself two things with regard to the amendment proposed by the member for Skeena: First of all, whether the prisoners are well-informed; and secondly, whether they can have the will to improve society. Indeed, that is how, generally speaking, I understand franchise. Now, because in practice prisoners are given instead of denied access to information through radio programs, television, newspapers, they are in a position to follow the evolution of society like all other citizens, to see how the affairs of the state are managed, and so to pass judgment. Does the fact that he is excluded from normal life constitute a valid reason for denying him the right to vote?
June 22, 1970

Considering the information, I do not think so, for to admit that the fact of being cut off somewhat from the normal life of the political society to which we belong could result in being deprived of one's right to vote should lead us normally to the same way of thinking as regards servicemen stationed abroad. Servicemen, to whom we recognize the right to vote, do not live in their normal social environment, do not live within our frontiers. In order to get the necessary information and be able to have a sound opinion as to the administration of public affairs, they must rely on the mass media as a whole. This goes to say that their means of getting information are not better than those of an inmate within prison walls.
Moreover, can a prisoner feel a real desire to improve society, which would be the normal consequence of the exercise of his franchise?
I believe first of all that the prisoner, if he is married, surely wants his family to live in society as he sees it: the best possible for his children, for his wife, for his friends and for the community as a whole. Can the fact that he committed a crime or an offense prevent him from giving his opinion on the rights we constantly deal with during our sessions, the rights affecting the life of every citizen, whatever was his behaviour in society?
And I do not think so. If we really believe in the way we apply the rules in our penitentiaries, if we sincerely believe that a criminal should be rehabilitated, we should give him the right to give his opinion on the kind of society that will be established and the kind of people who will administer it on his behalf.
This is why I would have liked it better had the amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned one exception, namely life-term prisoners because they cannot hope to lead ever a normal life in society.
I think that a life-term prisoner should lose his franchise. It would be an exception.
I think that we should welcome the amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena since, in general, it meets two concepts which are really the basis of the franchise: first, to properly inform the prisoner so that he may exercice his right to vote in an enlightened manner and on the other hand, his actual desire to improve society and to put it in the hands of responsible men.
Canada Elections Act


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to give all my views on criminology or penology, but I think it would be wise if this suggestion were given a good deal more reflection, perhaps a good deal more than that suggested by the hon. member for Matane. Even though by my mathematical calculations, at the present rate of progress we are going to need nine more sitting days to finish this bill, I still think at the end of that time we might not be quite ready to take up this idea. I think there are many things we ought to reflect upon.
The suggestion which the hon. member tossed out was one which shook me rigid, to use the vernacular. The authorities of the institutions would make the decision as to which group would vote on advance polling and which would vote on election day. It seems to me this would call upon them to make a qualitative judgment which I would not ask them to make even if they were a college of archangels. The success of that venture would be very problematical.
I am a little concerned, too, about the ethical problems as distinct from some of the legal problems. The mover of the amendment would exclude from voting, shall we say, someone who gave a voter a bottle of rum on election day, but someone who gave half a dozen voters a Molotov cocktail would be all right for ever and a day under this proposal. There may be a lot of ethical judgments which we will have to reflect upon as we look into this interesting suggestion.
Going through my mind has been the question which always has been difficult in elections, namely, what is meant by "ordinary residence"? When I apply that concept to this amendment, I am equally concerned about what is ordinary residence. I have a feeling that the administrative problems as to the location of the institutions are pretty complex. I am still a little concerned about the posting of the names. All in all, I think it might be one of those matters to which we should all give our careful attention perhaps before the next session of Parliament.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. Whicher:: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that I came into the Chamber tonight. I have been sitting in the Finance Committee all day and have not had the opportunity to listen to this debate, but I have heard enough to realize that so far as I am concerned I am away behind in this so-called permissive

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
society. It seems to me that if we accept some of the suggestions put forward by the hon. member who proposed this amendment, we will make our society permissive to the point of extreme exaggeration.
With regard to the fact that there are people in jail for minor offences, may I respectfully point out that they would not be there if they had obeyed the law. However, in addition to that the hon. member is suggesting that rapists, murderers, arsonists and people who commit treason should have the right to vote. May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that people who disobey the laws of Canada and disobey the laws of Parliament should lose some of the rights which they had in our society.
I am not saying that I am against these people being allowed to see their families, because our law allows it. But I point out that they receive excellent board and lodging free of charge, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. They are rehabilitated and reformed to the best of our ability. Yet here tonight there are hon. members who suggest that prisoners who have been in jail for a long time, and who perhaps will be there for a long time in the future because they have committed a crime, whether it be murder or rape of our wife or our daughter, should have the same rights as people who live in the rural communities, the towns, villages and cities of Canada.
I will not take any longer except to say that there is one way in which they can get the vote, and that is to obey the law. That fact should be stressed right across this country of ours. 1 appreciate that when these people are on parole, they should have the right to vote. That is fine, because society and the authorities concerned say they are safe to be out on the street and they are being rehabilitated to the best of our ability. But when they are in jail for having committed a hideous crime- and it has even been suggested tonight that they may have the right to run for Parliament and be elected-I say that is going too far. This amendment, so far as our being a permissive society is concerned, goes much too far for my taste.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I am certain that the hon. gentleman who preceded me must be referring to permissive society in another context than the one I consider we now have. The way in which he has approached this subject would make our society a sick society-and this is exactly what we are facing today. Those who are 
supporting this amendment to give the right to vote to inmates of penitentiaries are not asking for charity. All we are asking for is the inmates' rehabilitation.
Whether or not the hon. member who preceded me has visited many penitentiaries and spoken to many of their inmates is, of course, for him to tell us. I suggest that if we are to have an enlightened society we must consider proposals such as the one that is before us. If we as politicians and legislators are concerned about creating an enlightened society, we must develop a social conscience and look at the whole situation.
I appreciate-many hon. members have suggested this tonight-that the provisions of this amendment may be difficult to enforce at times, but we as legislators should insert in the law the principle we believe should be in it; the mechanics of enforcing it can easily be applied later. I am sure that the people who drafted this legislation can look after that area. Some hon. members have said we should not give the right to vote to inmates of penitentiaries. I suggest that on speaking to these people one finds that they are much more enlightened than many people who have not served a prison sentence. I suggest that people who have served a prison term have paid their debt to society, so why should we ask them to pay a second debt? They were sentenced by a judge who decided they must pay a debt to society. It is time we decided not to impose a double penalty on them.
It is very easy for the hon. member who preceded me to use the tone of voice he did and to say that these people should be taken out of society. But it is not the idea of penal institutions to rehabilitate them? As one reads "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" one is reminded of the previous speaker when he spoke of rehabilitation. I suggest that if we as legislators have the will power to try to improve society, then we should improve our whole society by taking into consideration those people who are within the walls of penitentiaries. I am sure that ours does not have to be a permissive society, but rather a just society-and not in the terms used on many occasions by the Prime Minister. I refer to a society with a social conscience and a realization that people within penitentiary walls are paying a debt to society and should not have the right to vote taken away from them.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, I will only say a few words partly to support the hon. member
June 22, 1970

lor Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) and to add that I do not approve the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).
In the first place, it seems to me that para-graphe (e), subclause (4) of clause 14 is extremely broad. The paragraph reads as follows:
(e) every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in any penal institution for the commission of any offence;
There are two extremely vague terms which lead me to believe that we would not be fair if they were accepted.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The phrase "every person" includes hardened criminals who have been given a life sentence as well as individuals sentenced to a three month jail term for dangerous driving, for example, or because they could not obtain bail or for any other reason. Such an expression is unacceptable in a bill dealing with the basic democratic right: the right to vote.
In my opinion, there is another expression which is unacceptable, and I quote:
-for the commission of any offence-
There is an enormous difference between the person who is sentenced for a theft of $2, $10,000 and $100,000. I hope my colleagues realize that. The man who is guilty of rape, homicide, armed robbery or a $10,000 theft is in a much more serious situation than the man who stole less than $20.
Everybody cannot be put on the same footing nor can we say "every person" because one has been judged an outlaw and is branded.
As the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), I am not willing to grant the right to vote to all criminals in all Canadian jails. The right to vote is not all; one should be able to use that right according to two principles.
First, one must realize what he is doing and, second, try to improve a given situation.
The convict, if he has committed ten offences, certainly rejects society, its leaders, its laws and its framework. Therefore, he is not prepared to take advantage of his franchise; even if he could use it, he could not do so conscienciously, honestly and properly.
On the other hand, anyone convicted following a minor offence such as dangerous driving, a $200 theft or inability to put up bail

justice in Canada being bound to money: if one is rich and a member of a particular political party, one is safe-cannot be considered as a dangerous criminal.
Canada Elections Act
That is why I feel that paragraph (e) is unacceptable. However, one must not go to the other extreme and extend its approval to all inmates.
It would surely be wise for us, as members of Parliament, to reserve our judgment on paragraph (e), as well as on the amendment, in order to allow not only hon. members, but also legal counsels for the House, to find a third solution which would render justice not only to inmates able to exercise their right to vote, but also to the greatest number of people able to exercise it.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, it is always useful to have our colleagues give us the benefit of their knowledge. I was sin-prised by the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to the effect that paragraph (e) which reads as follows should be deleted:
(e) every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in any penal institution for the commission of any offence;-
The object of this amendment is to give inmates the right to vote. In my view, the amendment is in many ways illogical. First of all, its author has forgotten that paragraph (f) states that the right to vote shall be refused to, and I quote:
-every person who is restrained of his liberty of movement-
If the liberty of movement of a prisoner is restrained, the situation should be corrected. However, if we pushed this reasoning to the extreme, then under this paragraph, the disabled would also lose their franchise.
Something else amazes me too. 1 apologize for my scrappy remarks. Of course, they are in line with those I heard and on which I am trying to comment.
Some members of the N.D.P. sometimes suggest that we should not grant the franchise to senators. The bill stipulates that the franchise will not be granted-well, it might have been the Conservatives, but it is all the same, it comes from the opposition-to judges. Furthermore, the bill provides that the franchise is not to be granted to new Canadians who have not resided in Canada for five years because they are not Canadian citizens. All those things are understandable.
I feel that a senator has much more experience and deserves far more consideration than a criminal, and that the judge who is denied the franchise will vote much more sensibly and objectively than a criminal. It is

June 22. 1970
Canada Elections Act
denied to him though, under the pretext that it is to prevent him from making mistakes or to be partial.
I feel that judges would not go to the poll even though they were allowed to do so. At least, few of them would exercise their right to vote. In my opinion, it is not logical to insist so much on granting the right to vote to offenders, traitors and other individuals of the same ilk, while the citizens I just mentioned are denied that right.
I heard the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Sltoberg) accuse the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) and advocate ideas which would point to a sick society. I am inclined to believe, even though I respect the opinions of others, that our society is much more sick that we think. Indeed, in this House, as members of Parliament, upholders of public order and advocates of law and order, we go out of our way to protect offenders, traitors, criminals more than the senators, the judges and the new Canadiens who have been living in Canada for two or three years, as well as all the others we want to disfranchise.
I am under the impression that our society is sick, and I wonder whether the present trend is not going too far. Is it not precisely part of the penalty being imposed on the law-breaker or the person guilty of an attempt against the life or the property of others, to deprive him of his civil rights? As I said, I find some inconsistencies in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), and if he wanted to be logical, he would move an amendment to paragraph
(f).
As far as I am concerned, I am against granting the right to vote to inmates.
I feel that paragraph should be left unchanged and that, to act in a liberal way, judges should be qualified to vote, as well as new Canadians after a year or two, once they have proved they have become good Canadians, and that facilities should be extended to enable disabled persons to vote.
Those who are mentally ill are disqualified. Are a criminal a traitor, a slanderer, a thief not also, in a way, mentally ill?
If such people were normal, they would be just as law-abiding as you and I, or at least would strive to be. I am not referring to people who have been jailed as a result of a mistrial, but of those who have been proved guilty.
I consider the whole debate to be tainted with inconsistencies. It is, in my opinion, an

exaggeration to claim with such vehemence the right for inmates to exercise their civil rights.
I therefore intend to vote against this amendment.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to be brief. I am pleased that at last we are attacking the voting problems of the country with a forward-looking bill. I welcome many of the proposed changes and I hope that when the legislation is enacted, members of the armed forces will enjoy the secret ballot. I also hope that sick people and those absent from their own ridings on voting day will be able to exercise the franchise. However, I am worried about the suggestion that penitentiary inmates be allowed full voting rights.
I have always been in favour of efforts to rehabilitate penitentiary inmates. I have no desire to seek revenge on those who have no feeling for society, but I cannot quite see how we can give the vote to people who are guilty of treason, arson, aggravated assault, rape, armed robbery or murder. The greatest privilege that a Canadian can enjoy, next to that of life, is the right to vote in free elections. We should use it as a lever to encourage these people to get back into productive society.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The present law is very broad and would allow a man on parole to have full voting rights and all the other privileges of a citizen. It is up to those who are guilty of committing a crime-and I trust there are few languishing in our penitentiaries who are not guilty- to convince the authorities that they are fit for parole. Having worked with the Parole Board, I know that it is making every effort to return prisoners to productive society as soon as possible, bearing in mind the importance of protecting society. Next to wanting their liberty, self-respecting prisoners may want the right to vote. This very fact may be an encouragement to some of them to see the error of their ways. It may spur them into returning to society and having restored this privilege which they put in jeopardy by their behaviour.
It is bad enough to deprive a man of his liberty-I wish I knew of some way in which we could do away with jails and penitentiaries-but with our limited knowledge of the social sciences and psychology, perhaps even religion, at the present time apparently we have no alternative but to segregate people.
June 22, 1970

However, it is not necessary to be cruel. I have spoken against corporal punishment in this House and have left no doubt where I stand on that-I am absolutely against it. I am also against putting young men in jail except as a last resort. Where society, after careful thought and a fair trial, often with a jury, is convinced that there is no alternative to segregating prisoners, I think one part of that segregation should be that they be deprived of the right to vote. When they prove themselves worthy of parole, society is only too pleased to forgive them and restore to them the full voting rights that we as Canadian citizens are so proud to enjoy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee would be correct in thinking me prejudiced when I say that the hon. member for Skeena presented his amendment and his case in the most reasoned manner we have heard in this chamber on any amendment to this bill. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his argument, I believe all of us were impressed by the fact that he keeps hitting certain areas. I wondered whether he had intended to do that and I believe other members of the committee were wondering the same. In the course of his argument he in fact covered many areas of problem and difficulty, whether they be administrative or economic.
I support the amendment of the hon. member for a number of reasons which I shall mention later. First, I ask this question of myself and of my colleagues in the committee: What are we afraid of? We know that in every election there are thousands of people who do not vote, but no matter how picayune their reasons we do not lose any sleep over it unless we think we have a chance of winning by appeal or recount. If we pass this amendment, probably 10,000 or 12,000 people across Canada will be eligible to cast a ballot in a federal election. It is probable that many of them will not choose to be enumerated and to vote, as do many civilians.
It is suggested that those who have broken the law should pay the full penalty, and upon return to civilian life should have the rights and privileges of ordinary citizenship returned to them. With due deference to hon. members, if that argument has any validity Mr. Chairman, I suggest it follows that those who break the law but are not in penitentiaries should be deprived of the right to cast a ballot. Those who get away with extorsion, with usury, phony bankruptcies, even closing-
Canada Elections Act
out sales or high rents, commit crimes just as hideous in civilian society-but they have the full right of the franchise.
I am sure we all agree that the purpose of our electoral law and this amendment is to maximize the opportunity of Canadians to cast their ballot. Given that principle, our objective should be to enlarge the opportunity of the maximum number of people in this country to cast their ballot. Of course there will be administrative difficulties. For a moment I hoped that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace would support our amendment. He did not let me down: he told us how well he thought of it, and then gave us all the reasons why it cannot be done. Of course there will be administrative problems, but I have faith in the Chief Electoral Officer and the prison officials and I believe the problems can be solved.
What the committee needs to be concerned with is whether inmates of institutions should have the opportunity to cast a ballot. Some of them will be permanent residents and some will be there only a short time, but the day the enumeration starts they will be "ordinarily resident" because any prison term over two years is served in a penitentiary. These really are not problems: they may be excuses to avoid making the essential decision of whether inmates should be entitled to the franchise. Of course, there could be a block of this type of vote in some constituencies, and if they were to vote the same way they could elect their chosen candidate. But what else is new, Mr. Chairman? I suspect this could happen with civilian electors in a score of constituencies in Canada where a block of votes in one direction could swing the election. If we were to worry about the problem, we probably would have no electoral laws, because we all know that we make appeals to blocks of voters of various ethnic or social origins.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
If we include the inmates of penitentiaries within our electoral system, we might develop better penal laws than we have at the moment. I think those who are worried have no valid worry. I suggest the first thing we ought to consider is that inmates are human beings, no matter how inhuman might have been their actions at some time; second, they are citizens of Canada; third-this point was mentioned earlier-it seems to me that we should begin a small process which would lead to the rehabilitation of many of those in

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
penal institutions. If we accomplish that, what have we lost? Surely that chance is worth taking, both for the sake of the inmates and for society as a whole.
Some hon. members are worried in case an inmate of a jail becomes a candidate. It has been known to happen that a person in jail has been elected to office. I am thinking of John Queen-I think that is his name-when serving a jail term was elected to the Manitoba legislature in 1920 or 1921. I do not know how he was let out of jail. I understand that he walked across the street from the jail to the legislature and took his seat. There is also Louis Riel who was under the shadow of a jail term when he was elected to this House. He served in this House for one day and then stole across the river in the dark to a neighbouring country and fled west. Doubtless we could find other examples if we were to study Canadian history.
In any event, I do not understand why anyone need worry because I would be very surprised if any of the political parties represented in this House nominated as a candidate any inmate of a penal institution. Second, if such a man were ever nominated I suspect ways and means could be found of permitting him to sit here, even if a guard had to sit beside him in the House. Third, and perhaps this is the most important part of my argument, if we permit inmates of penitentiaries to vote, when we come to the appropriate clause of the bill an hon. member could move an amendment which would prohibit inmates serving prison terms from being candidates at elections.
I emphasize that it is most important for us to maximize the franchise. We are not considering a large group of voters, perhaps only 10,000 or 12,000. That, I should think, is not really the point. I think the real point is-I shall not belabour it-that here we have an opportunity to take one more step in the right direction in our modern and, I hope, increasingly more civilized society. We need to make an effort on behalf of those who are in penitentiaries. It seems to me that if we obtain some response from them for our effort, we shall be rewarded. No matter whether our efforts works or not, we shall know that we have tried. I submit to hon. members that our trying cannot harm the electoral process, the Canadian society or democracy. It may not do any good, but I do not know that and neither does anyone else. I think we ought to try because no matter how small our reward is, it will be worth it.
One could try to reply to the hon. member for Bruce and those who feel as he does, but one might lose his temper and not contribute much to the debate which so far has been rather bipartisan and multipartisan on this extremely important bill. If all the restrictions and penalties in the penal laws of Canada and of other nations-I say this with particular reference to those we have repealed-were so good, why did they not work? We accept that our amendment will not solve all the problems; neither will it turn inmates of penitentiaries automatically into fine, upright citizens, although some of them are at least as upright and upstanding as many who are loose in society. But I think it will help. I hope that without taking up much more time on the question the committee will say, "Yes, why not? Let us try it. Let us make our little contribution and try to return these people to society." I think if we do that, in a few years time we shall be glad we did.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, our friends of the NDP, so as to seem progressive, are trying to defy all those who live on the fringe of society and who are against it.
I am in favour of the rehabilitation of inmates. But to give them the right to vote goes against a principle of society to the effect that criminals accept beforehand to be deprived of their civic rights.
When I see our friends of the NDP trying to "deify" all kind of people who run counter to the principles of society and the law, I wonder whether they are sincere or whether they are merely trying to play politics.
I have nothing against inmates, but they must show that they are capable of rehabilitation before they are liberated. That is why I maintain that the proposed amendment goes too far. That we should give the right to vote to a prisoner on parole, I have nothing against that. But an individual who has served a sentence of ten or fifteen years, who has never shown a desire to rehabilitate himself and who has appeared several times before a court of justice cannot lay claim to the same civic rights as those who obey the law.
My hon. friends of the New Democratic party are too anxious to deify those persons who, besides, have all my sympathy. If they have perpetrated indictable offences against society, they must bear the consequences of their actions and be deprived of their civil rights.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) said that we, in the

June 22, 1970

opposition, were perhaps in favour of depriving senators of their right to vote, but we never claimed such a thing. My colleague from Trois-Rivieres should get the facts. He also said that one must bear-


George Albert Proud: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres should not be taken to task.


Martial Asselin: I beg your pardon?


George Albert Proud: I said that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres should not be taken to task, because it was one of your own colleagues, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), who himself proposed that senators be deprived of the right to vote, and not the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Martial Asselin: Anyway I shall discuss that with him and I shall report to the hon. member.
The member for Trois-Rivieres asserts also that the right vote should be taken away from those who are restrained of their liberty or deprived of the management of their property because they are mentally ill. It is quite clear that the persons who are qualified to vote must be able to make a choice. Why go into all that?
That discussion is therefore a waste of time. I simply would like the question to be put so that the matter can be settled.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


William Warren Allmand: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. A few minutes ago in this debate I raised some questions. They were replied to by the President of the Privy Council and the hon. member for Skeena. At that time I stated I was in favour of the principle of giving the vote to those in prison but that I could see certain administrative difficulties. Listening to the debate following my questions, and having examined the Canada Elections Act, I see that those administrative difficulties can be overcome. I will vote for this amendment. If it is carried, later in the debate I will move an amendment to clause 17, subclause 15 to which I will add the following paragraph:
An inmate in a penal institution shall for the purpose of this act be deemed to be resident with his family or, if he has no family, at his last listed address.
Later I will move an amendment to the part concerning proxy, clause 46.


George Albert Proud: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Canada Elections Act


Albert Béchard: The hon. member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: I think that we should in the first place, Mr. Chairman, dispose of the amendment now under consideration before stating that if the legislation is passed, we hope to propose another amendment. I think that it would be more logical.


Albert Béchard: Order please. We are now considering paragraph (4) and I think that we should not anticipate another clause which will be studied later. We should now dispose of-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Chairman, some of the objections raised in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena were the administrative difficulties which might arise if we voted for it and allowed inmates of a penitentiary to vote. I wish to explain to the House that we can vote in favour of this proposal and still have a system whereby inmates will be allowed to vote in their own constituencies. I have already pointed out that under the section "residence", we can provide that an inmate can vote in the residence with his family or at his last listed address.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: When we come to the part on proxy voting, to complement what I have already said I will move an amendment to clause 46, subclause 1 in which I will add a paragraph (d) with the words "his detention in a penal institution". In addition to students being allowed to vote by proxy if they are resident at a university, inmates in a penal institution will be included. These inmates will be able to use the proxy voting procedure to vote in the electoral district of their family or, if they have no family, at their last listed address. As I said, I will vote in favour of this amendment for the reasons I have just put forward. I have listened to the speeches in this debate. Many members say we should not give the vote to those who have committed a crime and are in penitentiaries, because they deserve to lose that privilege. That is a vindictive and punitive approach to prison reform.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: The whole purpose of a penitentiary system should be that when people leave the penitentiary they are better-prepared citizens than they were when they entered. If the penitentiary system means that
8474

June 22, 1970
Canada Elections Act
when people leave penitentiary they are worse citizens than they were when they entered, and are to be further punished by society, we are not doing our job.


Frank Howard: I will be very brief because I know it is the disposition of the committee to vote on this amendment. I do not want to delay the vote. I will only comment fleetlingly on what other members have said, including the hon. member for Charlevoix. I point out to him and other hon. members that regardless of what they may think-and I do not have to overemphasize this-this proposition was put forward by me as an individual. It was not put forward by the New Democratic Party, nor do the great bulk of the members of my party agree with this concept of rehabilitation. It was put forward in all sincerity. It did not call for the unkind remarks that were made.
I wish to refer briefly to the subject of rehabilitation. I hope it will have some effect on those hon. members who feel they should not support the proposition and should retain the punitive nature of the treatment of people in our prisons. We have tried all sorts of repressive measures such as heavy sentences, classing people as habitual criminals, removing their rights, and so on. None of these has worked in any measurable way. In our penitentiaries four out of five inmates have been in jail before. Only in recent years has our penitentiary system been altered. An alteration occurred as a result of the Parliament of Canada expressing the idea that we should be less rigid and confining and that we should concern ourselves with the fact that people in penitentiaries are human beings worthy of consideration, and not merely numbers.
Rehabilitation is not measurably affected by the conditions in a jail. It does not matter whether they are painted different colours, whether they have toilet facilities or what the situation may be. Rehabilitation is a state of mind on the part of an individual, a desire on his part to alter his attitude toward society and a desire to think truthfully and honestly about himself. If we can offer him one small fragment of an opportunity to face the truth about himself and his rehabilitation while he is in jail undergoing punishment, if we can let him participate in our democratic society while he is there, it will be for his good. He will have an opportunity to reflect on what he is doing and on what society is doing. It will be another step toward rehabilitating the individual to being a complete human being and a full citizen.


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 15; nays, 62.


Albert Béchard: I declare the
amendment lost.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, on June 16 I deposited with the Chair and distributed to the spokesmen for the parties an amendment to subclause 4. If I took a tenth of the time taken by the hon. member for Skeena to move his motion, I would be up against the hour of 10.30. Therefore, I will do my best to telescope my point of view and hope that having done so there will be such overwhelming opinion in favour of it that we can adopt my amendment without a recorded vote. My motion is as follows:
That subclause 4 be amended by inserting the following as paragraph (h): "that the members of the Senate of Canada be listed among those disqualified."
This is not the outpouring of one who is against the Senate. On the contrary, I am one who lives in the hope that some day I may become a member of that illustrious body. As I tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, when I reach the age of 74J I shall support his persistent motion to abolish the Senate, but until then I shall not.
There has always been the closest possible correlation between eligibility for candidacy and voting rights. Then again, people who are themselves members of a particular body do not vote to decide who are to become members of that body. In this sense I believe the Senate of Canada has not received the respect which it deserves. Its members are already represented in this Parliament as being members of the red chamber. It often happens that the word "Parliament" is used with reference only to those of us who are members of the green chamber. The Americans fall into the same error when they speak of congressmen; they are speaking, really, only of members of the House of Representatives. There is, of course, the British precedent that members of the House of Lords may not vote for candidates for the House of Commons-and I have recently come to think that the British know quite a bit about electioneering.
I believe we enhance respect for the Senate, to which body I hope to win my way some time, by recognizing that its members are in

June 22, 1970

Yukon and Territorial Lands Act
fact represented already in the Parliament of Canada; that they are not eligible for membership of this chamber and that they do not require to be involved in the process whereby we are elected, as we in turn are not involved in that mysterious process whereby they are selected. So with respect, and following excellent precedent, I move the motion as read.


Albert Béchard: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Macquarrie) negatived: Yeas, 16; nays, 59.


Albert Béchard: I declare the
amendment lost.
Subclauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 14 as amended agreed to.


Albert Béchard: Now we go back to clause 13, subclause (8).
On clause 13, subclause 8-Deletions from registry


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman1, I believe we had an amendment which was allowed to stand last week. It affected subclause 8 (b) (ii). I believe the amendment was proposed last week and allowed to stand.


Albert Béchard: The amendment reads:
That clause 13 be amended by deleting from subclause 8 paragraph (b) (ii) in line 26, the words "seventy-five" and substituting therefor the words "twenty-seven".
gress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



YUKON ACT. NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT AND TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT AMENDMENTS RESPECTING MEMBERS OF COUNCILS, VOTERS, APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES, LAND MANAGEMENT ZONES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, June 19, consideration of Bill C-212, to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to special order made Friday, June 19, 1970, the House will now revert to the taking of deferred divisions on Bill C-212, to amend the Yukon Act, Northwest Territories Act and Territorial Lands Act.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The first question is on motion No. 2, moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), as follows:
That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act be amended by deleting the words "but the Governor in Council may, after consultation with the council, at any time dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected" in clause 2, lines 12, 13, 14 and 15, page 1 thereof, and replacing the comma after the word "longer" in line 12 with a period.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question. Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 8; nays, 59.


Albert Béchard: I declare the
amendment lost.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I move: That clause 13 be amended by striking out line 26 on page 23 and substituting the following: "at least 50 of the electoral districts of Canada."


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the proposed amendment. I do so in opposition to the amendment. It seems to me that the whole notion of restrictions on the number of people who may run for a certain party-


Some hon. Members:: Half past ten.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Albert Béchard: Order. It being 10.30 p.m., it is my duty to rise, report pro-
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. May I say, for the record, that on the last vote the bell rang for only seven minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 3, moved by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), as follows:
That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out lines 12 to 15 on page 1 and substituting the following: "longer, but the Governor in Council may at any time, after consultation with the council where he deems such consultation to be practicable or, otherwise, after consultation with each of the members of the council with whom consultation can then be effected, dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected".
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 6, moved by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), as follows:
That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out subclause 2 of clause 5 on page 3 thereof.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
June 22, 1970

Division
++NAYS


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. The next question is on Motion No. 11, moved by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) as follows:
That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out lines 23 to 27 on page 5 and substituting the following:
"but the Governor in Council may at any time, after consultation with the council where he deems such consultation to be practicable or, otherwise, after consultation with each of the members of the council with whom consultation can then be effected, dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.

June 22, 1970
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the said motion carried on division.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Mr. Speaker:: We shall now proceed to Motion No. 12, moved by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), as follows:
That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out lines 1 to 5 on page 7 and substituting the following:
" (2) Subsections 4 and 5 of section 12 of the said act are repealed."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 13, moved by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), as follows:
That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out lines 5 to 19 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"3a. Where he deems it necessary for the protection of the ecological balance or physical characteristics of any area in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, the Governor in Council may, after consultation with the Council of the Yukon Territory or the Council of the Northwest Territories, as the case may be, where he deems such consultation to be practicable or, otherwise, after consultation with each of the members of the council with whom consultation can then be effected, set apart and appropriate any territorial lands in that area as a land management zone.
3b. The Governor in Council may, after consultation with the Council of the Yukon Territory or the Council of the Northwest Territories, as the case may be, where he deems such consultation to be practicable or, otherwise, after consultation with each of the members of the council with whom consultation can then be effected, make regulations respecting"
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-212, to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Gerald William Baldwin: By leave, now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.



POLLUTION-MONITORING OF WATERS RECEIVING EFFLUENT DISCHARGES FROM PLANTS USING MERCURY

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) the following question:
Is the Fisheries Department monitoring all those waters in Canada which receive effluent discharges from industrial plants using mercury processes in their operations? If so, how many such monitoring operations are currently under way?
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
Mercury pollution has become a major threat to many of our lakes and rivers. It apparently has been with us for a long period of time, but was never detected because no adequate tests for it were carried out. We now find that it has reached into Hudson Bay, where rather severe mercury contamination has been found in beluga whalemeat. The contamination must have come from the Nel-son-Saskatchewan River and it is thought that it originated from chemical plants in Saskatoon and in Dryden, Ontario. This means that hundreds of miles of a very large river and of a large lake in Manitoba must have been severely contaminated, because the fish and eventually the whales in Hudson Bay, have been affected. A similar story will probably unfold in other areas of Canada. Mercury poisoning is prevelant in Howe Sound in British Columbia, where it has forced closure of one of the finest sports fishing areas in the province. We have had the Saskatchewan River closed for months, at great cost to the Canadian taxpayers. Lake St. Clair has been closed to commercial fishing, and parts of the Ottawa River have also been closed.
Mercury is used in many major industries. Its use in fungicides is well known, and this use has been the source of some serious mercury pollution problems. Its compounds are useful in manufacturing and are used in some paints to prevent mildewing. The largest users of mercury are the electrical equipment industry and the manufacturers of chlorine and caustic soda. It is used as a catalyst in a
June 22, 1970

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion number of chemical manufacturing processes, particularly in the manufacture of vinyl chloride which is the base of many plastics. Mercury and its compounds can accumulate and be concentrated in living things. In this respect it is similar to radioactive pollution and to some pesticides such as DDT. Mercury in water is picked up and concentrated by fish. Birds and other species of sea life may further concentrate the mercury by eating contaminated fish. This is why any source of mercury pollution is dangerous.
I understand that some pulp factories used a mercury compound called phenyl mercury acetate-PMA

to prevent the growth of slime from fungi which clogs machines, and they discharge this PMA with their waste water. I do not know if any of our Canadian pulp plants use this mercury compound, but it should be checked out by the government. I have mentioned the chloralkali plants which produce chlorine and caustic soda by electrolytic process. The heaviest concentration of these plants is along the St. Lawrence River. Have all these plants been checked, along with the water, the river bottom and the fish in the vicinity of the plants? Has the department a list of all the industrial plants in Canada using mercury processes, and have these plants been checked to determine if a mercury pollution problem could exist in their operations? Does the department have sufficient research staff to carry out the monitoring required when a pollution problem is suspected?
These are important and urgent questions. I trust that the minister will be able to give us an assurance that the problem of mercury pollution is not only being looked into but that any offending industrial plant has been forced to take measures to rectify and prevent any further pollution from this source.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has asked several questions. The first is: Does the fisheries department monitor all those waters in Canada which receive effluent discharged from industrial plants using mercury processes in their operation? The answer is yes. The major industries using mercury, which previously were discharging substantial amounts of mercury into the waters of Canada, are the chloralkali industries, the chemical processing industries making caustic soda and chlorine principally for the pulp and paper industry, and the pulp and paper

industry itself. There are 12 such chloralkali plants in Canada.
We have had meetings in Ottawa with all the plants involved. We have monitored all the waters downstream of those plants where we know there has been a degree of mercury contamination in those waters. Steps have been taken, either directly by the federal Department of Fisheries or in conjunction with the provincial departments administering the Fisheries Act, to close local fisheries where mercury levels were high, to compensate fishermen, to identify areas of the river bottom which were contaminated with mercury and to arrange for them to be dredged out. The answer to the difficulties in the chloralkali industry has been total recirculation of the mercury effluent within the plant systems. This has been arranged in all cases.
We have also had meetings in Ottawa with representatives of the pulp and paper industry. There are approximately 140 pulp and paper mills in this country. A majority of them in years gone by used fungicides containing mercury. Progressively they have stopped using these fungicides, mainly because their customers require products which could not possibly contain mercury of any kind. However, at the beginning of 1970 there were still six pulp and paper mills in this country using these fungicides. Their use has since been discontinued.
We have been monitoring the waters downstream of those and other mills which were known within the last decade to use fungicides containing mercury. We have been working with the provinces and industry in each case where appropriate dredging and other measures are planned. The problems downstream of the pulp and paper mills have not been as serious and acute as those-


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



HEALTH AND WELFARE-INCLUSION OF OPTOMETRIC SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the subject I want to discuss tonight has been under discussion off and on in this House for the past four years. I raised it again on June 17 when I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). It seemed that in reply the minister was opening the door and that at long last we were going to get a definitive response to the question of including paramedical services, particularly optometric
June 22, 1970

services, under the medicare act. It is not necessary, nor do I have the time, to review the chequered experience in pursuing this matter when the medicare bill was before the House. Members became concerned over the possible application of paramedical services. At that time an amendment was moved which indicated that upon the request of a province, paramedical services could be included. Again, because of the widespread interest in optometric services it was specifically mentioned.
The reason optometric services are a matter of great concern to many hon. members is that this is the only eye care service available to large numbers of people who live outside the larger urban centres. We are all aware that there is a shortage of ophthalmological services. This means that if Canadians in our rural communities are to receive even the basic refraction tests and are to be covered by the medicare program, which is supposed to be a universal program, they must depend upon the services of optometrists who serve in our smaller communities.
I asked the minister whether it was his intention, based on the fact that a consensus has been reached by the provinces participating in the program, that the government of Canada will now recognize the principle established in the amendment and cover optometric services under the medicare act.
[DOT] (11:20 p.m.)
The minister replied that there was to be a meeting during the summer, within the coming two months, with the provincial health ministers at which time the subject would be considered, and that the provincial government concerned would again be canvassed for a consensus. The uncertainty arises from this concept of consensus. It was not present at all in the original amendment. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) specifically raised this point and got an answer from the then Minister of Health and Welfare that it would apply when a single province asked for this particular coverage for its citizens.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Since that time the consensus concept has been introduced by the former minister and by the present minister. He has even gone so far as to suggest there will be no application of this principle until the ter-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ritories have been included under the medicare legislation. However, as I said, I asked the minister whether he would consider consensus to be approval by all the provinces participating in medicare at this point, and his answer was, "Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is very largely true."
I trust that tonight the minister, or whoever is representing him, will clarify this point. I think it will be appreciated that there is discrimination involved as between citizens of Canada in various regions and I am sure all members will agree that the principle of universality, which was laid down so firmly by the federal government when it introduced the medicare program, should apply.


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Medical Care Act requires that insured services be provided to all residents upon uniform terms and conditions on a basis, and I quotethat does not impede or preclude either directly or indirectly, whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to insured services by insured persons.
At the federal-provincial conference of ministers of health held late last year, the provinces indicated to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) their desire to include optometric services under medicare. The minister informed the provincial ministers of health at that time that when all the provinces had officially entered into medicare he would take up the matter of including optometric services with his colleagues. At this time, three provinces are not included under the federal medical care program. These are the province of Quebec, for which a precise date of entry is not yet known, New Brunswick, whose announced date of entry is January 1, 1971, and Prince Edward Island, whose announced date of entry is December 1 of this year.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot at this time give the House an outright assurance that eye refraction care will be made available to all Canadians through the medicare program. The extension of medicare to cover these services is a matter which the government must weigh in relation to its total commitments. The minister, however, gives the assurance that it is his intention to discuss the inclusion of these services with his cabinet colleagues.
I would add, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the members of this House, that five provinces include optometric benefits among
June 22, 1970
8482	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the extra benefits of provincial medical care insurance. These benefits, however, are not sustained by federal grants.



INDUSTRY-PROPOSED CLOSING OP CANADIAN SUBSIDIARY BY SKIL CORPORATION OF CHICAGO

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to say that I am pleased the minister is here this evening to reply to my question. I trust that whatever sleep he loses tonight he will be able to catch up on tomorrow, either in his office or some other appropriate place.
The battle for Canadian control of our economy is coming to a boil, perhaps even to a brawl. It began to simmer even before the ill-fated budget of Walter Gordon and precipitated the decline of Mr. Gordon, a once powerful force in the Liberal cabinet, to his final isolation and resignation just before the last election. It seems that Mr. Grodon was no longer credible with his colleagues, in spite of the fact that the Watkins report on the subject of the tremendous foreign inroads-and by that I mean United States inroads-that had been made in our economy had been tabled in the meantime.
The Watkins report of 1964 cited, fearfully, large percentages of foreign ownership in some industries, notably gas, oil, mining and autos, and suggested that it might be too late for Canada ever again to regain control of her economy. "So what", many were heard to say, "Hasn't every developing country needed foreign investment at the start? Haven't Canadians the second highest standard of living in the world? What difference does it really make, anyway, who owns what as long as our resources are developed and employment is provided our citizens? And don't we need not less, but even more foreign capital?"
This view, of course, I believe has been the view accepted by most Canadians who have thought about the matter at all. Indeed it is the position that must have been taken by the Liberal government, because to my knowledge not one new piece of legislation was initiated to protect us from foreign takeovers as a result of Professor Watkins' 1964 study. Lately the people of Canada have been making slightly different sounds and there has been a resurgence of concern over such issues. "Sure, we enjoy a high standards of living," some are saying, "but is it really worth it if the price tag includes polluting our waters by pulp mills and decimating our wildlife ranges with open coal pits?"


The government has at last reacted. That is what governments always do-they seldom act; they only react. We are now seeing what amounts to a government flip-flop on the question of Canadian nationalism. The sale of our Mercantile Bank to the New York City Bank was forbidden, as was the proposed sale by Denison uranium mines to foreign interests more recently. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) introduced a bill to assert sovereignty over Canada's Arctic. The Minister of Energy (Mr. Greene) formerly regarded as a continentalist, reversed himself in Denver last month and became instead a sabre-rattling chauvinist, even going so far as to suggest jamming the air waves to protect us from United States' cultural imperialism.
All these things may be the result of government rethinking and enlightenment, and they are fine even though far off and remote from the concerns of the average Canadian worker. To get closer to my home and the subject that we are debating tonight, the importance of Canadian ownership is very real to 125 wage earners in the lower mainland of British Columbia. In 1968 a local firm, Power Machinery, was purchased by the multinational corporation Skil, the saw people of Chicago. My correspondents tell me that Skil now wants to close down its Vancouver operation on the ground of surplus production capacity in Chicago. What might happen- and I know of no present law to prevent its happening-is that the lower mainland of B.C. will be deprived of 125 jobs in order that Chicago can gain the same number. This small, local example has been replicated hundreds of times all over the country during recent years. Where are the former foods canneries of the Fraser Valley? What is to become of the 600 Dunlop workers recently laid off in Toronto?
This process of rationalization in order to maximize the advantages of the multinational corporation makes good economic sense to the corporation, but makes no sense at all to the men who are about to be unemployed. For that matter, what economic advantage can accrue to this country as the result of such policies? This is the nub of the problem of foreign ownership. It is not that Americans are sinister people who have taken advantage of us-quite the opposite; it is that Canadians, through their government, have encouraged this trend and thus vital decisions regarding Canada's future continue to be made beyond our borders.
June 22, 1970	COMMONS
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
Up to now, as tar as I know there has been no legal way for us to stop the sell-out habit.
I think from the context of what I have said the question I am enlarging upon tonight needs no repetition. The minister knows whereof I speak. I conclude by saying that I hope the reply of the minister will give these job holders some hope. I can understand if the Skil Corporation in their corporate wisdom decide to pull out of the B.C. operation. Perhaps the minister will tell us what his intentions are and what he may be able to do legally. Fine words are very tremendous and very comforting for a time. I do not think anyone would dispute the fact that Canada has no legal means of protecting the Canadian worker from this kind of pull-out. I am aware that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been in touch with the company officials-probably with its usual kind of genial persuasiveness, if I know the minister. My intervention tonight is made in the hope that we can keep this issue alive. The minister might indicate some positive steps, and I look forward to hearing his reply.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my friend has painted with a very wide brush. Perhaps I could call him a political Borduas. The hon. member also paints mostly in black and white, as did Borduas. It is too late in the
DEBATES	8483
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion evening to go into the whole question he raises, and I have to go home to read my cabinet papers for tomorrow. I will answer specifically in respect of the case referred to by the member regarding the Skil Corporation.
As the hon. member indicated, we are concerned, and officers of the department in Ottawa and in the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago have discussed the situation with management of the Skil Corporation, trying to draw their attention to the concern which would be felt if the operations of this company's Vancouver plant were to be curtailed. The minister smiles. Some of his officials are usually quite convincing in their polite approach to this type of problem.
The company has been pressed to consider alternative solutions to their current corporate problems which would not require any cutbacks in Vancouver, and the company indicated that it would review the situation carefully. I understand that talks are now going on in Vancouver. As far as I am aware, Skil Corporation, the U.S. parent company, has not yet made any final decision regarding its Vancouver subsidiary. Officials of the department have offered and will continue to offer any assistance which we might be able to provide to resolve this problem in a satisfactory way.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.

Tuesday, June 23, 1970