1975-12-10

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, according to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an urgent and important matter.
Considering the powers conferred under Bill C-73 to the Anti-Inflation Board, and the regulations that will be made after the adoption of this legislation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House recommend that regulations to be made under Bill C-73 be brought to the attention of the Standing Committee on Finance and Trade before their application.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In light of reports that the Anti-Inflation Board will today indicate non-acceptance of the agreement between the Post Office and the CUPW, has the minister requested permission from the Anti-Inflation Board to appear before it to make representations?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the reports simply because none
have been brought to my attention officially. I have no hesitation to seek-


An hon. Member:: Do you listen to radio?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am a better friend of labour than the socialists ever were. I may say to the hon. gentleman that if the Anti-Inflation Board thinks this is too rich a settlement, what would it have thought of the 52 per cent settlement the NDP were advocating? Having said that, I suggest I would go to the Anti-Inflation Board on behalf of the workers of CUPW, even though I have contempt for some of their leaders, and be prepared to fight for the workers who have been deprived of wages for 41 days. I think the Anti-Inflation Board in the meantime can address itself to such meaningful things as rolling back the exorbitant prices of certain foodstuffs in this country.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON APPEARANCE OF POSTMASTER GENERAL BEFORE ANTI-INFLATION BOARD
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? Is it the government's position that the Postmaster General should seek permission to make representation to the Anti-Inflation Board? If so, would the Postmaster General be stating the government's case before the Anti-Inflation Board?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge this question does not arise in this way. When the Anti-Inflation Board, in carrying out its mandate, wants to question the validity of any settlement, it gets in touch with both parties. I know it got in touch with certain ministers of the government. I have no knowledge of what it did with labour. I have been told, and this is hearsay, that it has been in touch with labour. There is no question at this time or, indeed, in future, of having the Postmaster General make certain representations to the Anti-Inflation Board.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT APPEALING BOARD'S REJECTION OF A WAGE SETTLEMENT TO WHICH IT WAS A PARTY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to know the position of the government in the case where the Anti-Inflation Board finds a settlement, to which the government is a party, unsatisfactory. Would the government entertain an appeal with respect to that agreement to which it is a party? This is not a hypothetical question. Is

December 10, 1975
Oral Questions
the government prepared to entertain an appeal to itself, in the case where it is a party to the original agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the question is not hypothetical, it probably has reference to the white paper and the commission as it now exists and will exist under the legislation. This is a matter of law. The hon. member is able to read the white paper; he knows the procedure. We have always stated that the government would negotiate in good faith with its employees, including the postal workers, would reach a settlement which we would interpret to be within the guidelines, but that the Anti-Inflation Board has a duty to perform. As I indicated, I know that the Anti-Inflation Board is making certain contacts, at least with this party. That is the status of the situation now.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, of which I gave him notice. Would the minister inform the House of the final destination of some two million pounds of buckwheat imported from North Dakota and Minnesota to Manitoba in October, 1975, by Cargill Limited and other grain companies, and can he inform the House what amounts, if any, were imported in November?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is a requirement under the Canada Grains Act for licensed elevators which receive foreign grain to report these receipts to the Canadian Grain Commission. I have asked the commission to check into this matter and when I have their report I will be pleased to forward information to the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that, Gene?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was the one who was relatively uninformed on agricultural matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: May I ask my colleague from an automotive city the following supplementary? Can the minister tell the House if this buckwheat-and would he please check this-is being transported under statutory grain rates through Canada for re-export to Japan via Vancouver, a practice which I am sure the minister well knows would be a clear violation of Canadian law?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sent the question to my office at one o'clock. I was not aware of it until just before entering the House because I was at a meeting until two o'clock. We are already asking for this information and will forward it to the hon. member as soon as it is available. As Minister of Agriculture, I certainly do not want anything done that is contrary to our law.



LICENCES GRANTED FOR STORAGE OF UNITED STATES BUCKWHEAT

John Edward Broadbent: Will the minister further advise the House or investigate whether the Canadian Grain Commission has received requests for and/or granted any licence to Cargill or other United States companies to allow U.S. buckwheat to be stored in Canadian elevators, as required under the Canada Grains Act? If so, will he tell us the names of those companies?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, all the information that the Canadian Grain Commission has concerning the use of warehouse facilities, elevator facilities and so on is public information. This is done from time to time. It is all kept according to the law by the Canadian Grain Commission. I will make the information available to the hon. member or the House.



FINANCE


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Finance and it was referred to the Prime Minister. The latter answered as follows:
-there are no such things as interest-free loans. When we grant loans, the government itself has to borrow the money from the taxpayers. If the interest is not paid by the beneficiary, it is paid by the taxpayers generally.
In answer to a supplementary, the Prime Minister gave as example the last borrowing through the Canada saving bonds for which the government pays interest of about 914 per cent to lend that money interest-free to foreign countries. This answer puzzled me and to use the terms-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member want to ask a question?


René Matte: I am coming to my question, Mr. Speaker; here it is: Would the Prime Minister advise the House whether interest-free loans to foreign countries are made with money obtained through Canada saving bonds or with money generated by credit making?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the money we lend to developing countries comes to them as a sort of credit. This is only possible if the government itself is in a position to extend credit. This credit in turn depends on the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Canadian government as well as on the monetary system itself. As I said, this monetary system can operate only if the government makes sure that all loans yield interest. With certain types of loans, it frequently happens that taxpayers instead of the borrower must pay the interest. Anyway, when the government must borrow money for its own use, it must pay interest, and this is why I say that interest-free loans do not exist. There are loans on which the interest is paid either by the borrower or the government, that is to say, the taxpayers.
December 10, 1975



INQUIRY WHETHER MONEY LENT TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES IS GAINED THROUGH BONDS

René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
My question is clear and precise. Do we know any more clearly whether those loans are taken from the Canada savings bonds fund, or from an altogether fictitious credit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will refer to the answer I made yesterday, I gave an example in which the government itself had to pay interest. I could certainly have taken another example than Canada savings bonds; I could have chosen the issues of the Canadian government bonds. Two weeks ago, I think, bonds were issued which bear a 10 per cent interest for those who agree to lend money to the government for a period of 20 years, I think. So, when the government borrows money from taxpayers, it pays interest, and it is fair that when it lends to others, this interest is paid back to the government, again, either by the borrower, or by the taxpayer himself.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the hon. gentleman tell the House whether, pursuant to any investigations into party fund raising practices which one of the RCMP warrants indicated formed part of their inquiry into the Sky Shops affair, he or his investigatory officials have contacted the RCMP to ascertain the extent to which political contributions have been paid by companies or individuals out of pre-tax dollars?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: While we are conducting an investigation I think it would be inappropriate to make any comment. If the hon. member would wait a couple of weeks I think we will have more information for him.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I should like to thank the minister for that answer and ask him whether he will, in fact, do this and report to the House in due course since it is conceivable that millions of dollars of tax revenue have been lost if this practice has been widespread.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Auditor General concluded in his report tabled yesterday that the present state of financial management and control systems
Oral Questions
in the government is significantly below acceptable standards and effectiveness and has recommended the establishment of a special agency to co-ordinate supervision of public spending. Since this conclusion and recommendation, in effect, call into question the competence of the Treasury Board and its capacity to rectify the situation, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he, personally, intends to act to deal with this most serious matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
admit the premise of the question, particularly as it relates to the Treasury Board. Naturally, we are very concerned about the state of affairs to which the Auditor General refers and we are looking seriously at the recommendations he is making, including the setting up of a special branch or agency. Early in the New Year I hope to announce the response of the government to these particular recommendations made by the Auditor General. It is certain that in the meantime the government is very anxious to draw inspiration from the Auditor General's report and make sure that the government does improve the efficiency of its accounting procedures.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Auditor General stated on page nine of his report that he has been notified that the report of the independent review committee on the powers and resources of the Auditor General is under active consideration by the cabinet and that proposals will be made in the form of draft legislation. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether the government has yet decided what to do about this matter and when legislation will be introduced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The words speak for themselves. The matter is under active consideration by the government and we shall make an announcement in the usual manner, should we decide to take action.



ANTI-INFLATION BOARD POSSIBILITY OF CABINET RECEIVING REPRESENTATIONS FROM GROUPS AGAINST WHOM BOARD MADE DECISIONS

Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it is supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Since it is apparent that the Postmaster General has been, is, and will be making representations to the cabinet respecting the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board regarding the postal settlement, may I ask whether the cabinet is also ready to receive representations from other groups or other boards in respect of whom decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board have been made?

December 10, 1975
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member refers, as I believe the Leader of the Opposition did, to decisions of the Anti-Inflation Board. The only decision of which I am aware is that they are carrying out their mandate in this particular case by talking to the parties to the dispute. One of the parties is the Government of Canada, and that means all the ministers on this side of the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. According to press reports, as late as three quarters of an hour ago a decision had been handed down by the AntiInflation Board. But whether it has or has not, may I get down to brass tacks and ask the Prime Minister whether the cabinet would be willing to hear a joint appeal by the metro Toronto school board and the metro Toronto secondary school teachers federation regarding the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board of 10 days ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again, as I did in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I refer the hon. member to the statute which is in the process of being passed and which will soon be proclaimed, or to the white paper, where he will see what procedure has been laid out. The hon. member refers to a decision of the Anti-Inflation Board, a recent one, he says. No member on this side is aware of any such decision, so if the hon. member has information I wish he would lay it before the House.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence it might be directed to the Prime Minister. With respect to the vote at the United Nations yesterday concerning the situation in Chile, when the assembly registered its profound distress at the constant and flagrant violations of human rights, a vote that Canada supported, in view of the comments made at that time by our delegate to the third committee that Canada was not totally accepting the conclusions of the report of the special working group because it was not able to enter Chile to observe and make inquiries first hand, would the government take further action directly through diplomatic channels with the government of Chile in order that there can be a full and complete examination of the situation in that country?


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all government members highly appreciate this question. The hon. member points out the concern we have always felt in the past with regard to the situation in Chile. At the time, we protested against the fact that no international commission could go and see on the spot what was going on there. We will continue to do so. Our positive vote yesterday, at the United Nations, in favour of human rights being respected in Chile proves indeed that we will continue to do so.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While appreciating and congratulating the government on the vote, would the parliamentary secretary indicate, in view of the lack of information which seemed to concern our delegate to the third committee, whether we will be taking definite action with the junta in Chile to ensure that there is a full examination by this working group, or a similar one established by the United Nations?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I did not answer the supplementary previously because it seems to me to be fairly obvious that we are working on a multilateral level; I therefore cannot make a unilateral statement on the matter at this time.



ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With respect to the Auditor General's report that AECL is guilty both of inflating the true value of its assets and of understating the current extent of its liabilities, and in view of the $100 million loss on the Argentine project, does the minister intend to consult his colleague the President of the Treasury Board regarding the launching of a full scale inquiry into the financial management systems of AECL?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will have plenty of opportunity in the public accounts committee to question officials of AECL.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will direct to the President of the Treasury Board. Does the minister agree that if the practice followed by AECL were followed by a public company in this country, the legal consequences could be very serious indeed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINDING OF LEAD IN CANNED SOFT DRINKS-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that federal inspectors have found traces of lead in 7-UP cans, could the minister inform the House whether his officials have extended investigations to other pop manufacturers as well as to producers of canned beer, and would he say whether major retailers have been notified of these findings?

December 10, 1975


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the problem appears to be confined at the present time to the products of one particular company, and the initial analysis will be confined principally to the products of that company. However, we will be including products from other manufacturers as part of a continuing monitoring program that has been under way for several years.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there have been no post office services at Rankin Inlet, Northwest Territories, since the mail strike ended on December 2, and in view of the fact that explanations I have received from his officials have been conflicting, will the Postmaster General take steps to ensure that the post office at Rankin Inlet, Northwest Territories, is reopened as soon as possible, as Santa Claus is frustrated?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the problem there is one of finding a suitable candidate for a vacancy.


An hon. Member:: Do you want the job?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Are you available, Bryce?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would say sincerely that any recommendations of the hon. gentleman would be taken very seriously. If they will help to fill the vacancy I will be glad to accept any of his recommendations, because he seems to be an exception to the general rule in that corner.



TROPICAL DISEASES-NEED FOR QUARANTINE AND TREATMENT CENTRES WITH COMPETENT STAFF

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rapid increase in the incidence of tropical diseases and the fact that our facilities are inadequate for treating this increasing number, and the additional fact that the Olympic Games will be held in Canada in 1976 with athletes coming from all over the world, for example from countries such as Ghana, Nigeria and West Africa where the disease lassa is endemic and airborne, possibly one of the most dangerous in the world, with the frightening mortality rate of something like 18 per cent to 50 per cent, which could become epidemic in Canada where, as far as is known no specific treatment is available, I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare what provisions his department has made to meet the situation by setting up quarantine stations and treatment centres manned by
Oral Questions
physicians who know something about the care and treatment of this disease?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I intend to introduce further amendments to the Quarantine Act during the course of the next session which will permit me to name any highly contagious disease such as Lassa fever, as requiring quarantine. Secondly, we have at the present time a quarantine contingency plan in existence to be activated in the event of the development or outbreak of any highly contagious disease. Thirdly, there is a federal-provincial study group known as the Isolation Facilities Working Group studying at the present time all the existing isolation facilities across the country and evaluating whether these facilities are adequate to meet the necessary needs in the case of a contagious disease being imported into Canada. Finally, we are in close and continuing consultation with other countries, in particular the United States and the United Kingdom, with regard to all areas of contagious diseases.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary, and it follows the report of our strong vote at the United Nations in respect of the rights of man. It is also somewhat appropriate to the season we are about to celebrate. The question concerns disturbing reports of renewed persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi following their expulsion from Mozambique immediately after its liberation. Knowing of the interest in Mozambique's liberation shown by this government, and knowing that Jehovah's Witnesses steadfastly refuse either to vote or bear arms and, therefore, have no one to speak for them in the councils of this world, will the minister make representations to Malawi urging that these people, or those of them who remain, be permitted to live in peace?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I shall convey the proposal of the hon. member to the Secretary of State for External Affairs so that he can study it.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
As the authorities of the Canadian National announced publicly yesterday afternoon their decision to increase the rates on the lines serving the suburbs of Montreal by 25 per cent from the beginning of January, can the minister tell

December 10, 1975
Oral Questions
us whether he discussed the matter with the CN authorities and whether he favours their decision?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been ongoing discussions among some of our officials and the Canadian National Railways and also with the city of Montreal. In general, the problem which faces the railways is the significant loss on commuter services, and in our view the problem is essentially one to be dealt with by provincial and municipal authorities.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister.
I think he will understand the meaning of my question because we now have legislation on controls. An agency created by the government is endorsing a 25 per cent rate increase. Is the Prime Minister prepared to urge the commission not to allow increases in excess of 10 per cent, as provided in Bill C-73?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have little to add to what the Minister of Transport has just told to the House. The hon. member is certainly aware that the matter was discussed last week when the Minister of Finance met the finance ministers of the provinces. We tried to establish together a plan which would enable the government to fight inflation as much as possible while ensuring that the taxpayers would bear their fair share of the burden. To my knowledge, the regulation on agencies and Crown corporations is not published. I think it will be issued very soon.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In the answers he gave the House of Commons last November 21 and yesterday, December 9, following questions about the use of French in airports, the minister said that a committee of his department was reviewing the implications of the use of French in airports. Can the minister tell the House today when the committee will submit its report, what are the names of the members of that committee and whether French-speaking controllers are represented on that committee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there was a committee which had representation from all sides, including the French-speaking controllers, that made very little progress before discontinuing its work because of some confrontation between the parties represented. What has been going on since is that within our department we have been meeting the various people interested with a view to making progress in respect of the safe use of the two languages in differing circumstances. In the case of air traffic and air traffic control, I will

expect a series of reports rather than a specific report in order that we can make progress in a progressive manner.


An hon. Member:: And that's a progressive answer.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I want the question answered by the Prime Minister and not by a parliamentary secretary, because they have no knowledge of policy.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask this question in view of the fact that today is International Human Rights day, and that members of the Ukrainian peoples are gathered on Parliament Hill for the purpose of protesting the imprisonment of six women who have committed no offence other than having stated that the constitutions of the U.S.S.R. and the United Nations denies the imprisonment being imposed on these women in the U.S.S.R.
Having regard to the fact that representatives of the Ukrainian people brought this matter to the attention of the government on December 2 and asked that the question of the imprisonment of women who are political prisoners should be brought to the attention of the Third Committee debate at the UN, and since the matter was not raised, will the Prime Minister, because of the very great importance of this matter and its interest to hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and having regard to the provisions of the Helsinki pact, bring to the attention of the U.S.S.R. the injustice that is being perpetrated which denies those principles of the United Nations charter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question, of course, is an important one but it refers to certain dates and discussion in committee of a particular nature, and of such a nature indeed that the right hon. gentleman had to read his question because he was not too much aware of it himself. I think he will understand that if I refer this question to the parliamentary secretary, it would not be the intention to downgrade any member of this House particularly one as capable as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: The capabilities-


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I say to the right hon. gentleman opposite that I received the representatives of the Committee of Canadian Ukrainians some time ago. I do not recall the exact date. We discussed action and information in respect of the Canadian public on the question the right
December 10, 1975

hon. gentleman referred to this House. This afternoon, in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I am receiving a group of Canadian women who will make a representation so I think he will understand that I would like to listen to their representation before making any statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister saw fit to make one of his smart aleck remarks-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: -unused as he is to reading from the record as he speaks. I have before me a document giving the names of these women and I could not memorize them, but because the Prime Minister does not know who they are possibly I should read this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert has put a question which has been referred to the parliamentary secretary. If he has a supplementary question perhaps he would put it right away.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a gratuitous and insulting remark was made. However, he is improving; he does not use four-letter words any more. Mr. Speaker, on a question of order I raise this point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been here long enough to know the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the right hon. member or any other member has a point of order it can be taken at three o'clock. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that grandparents receiving old age security and the guaranteed income supplement who are called upon to raise their grandchildren find that the family allowance paid for the grandchildren to the grandmother results in the guaranteed income supplement paid to the grandparents being reduced, even though this may happpen in just a few cases, will the minister look at it in the hope that this unfairness can be corrected.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having drawn this matter to my attention before. I am sure this is a matter which probably escaped the attention of all members of parliament when we were considering family allowances and the OAS legislation. I am looking into it
Oral Questions
further and assessing the actual situation. I hope that after review, if what the hon. member says is the exact situation, we shall be able to remedy this situation at the first opportunity.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport or his parliamentary secretary.
In view of the obsessive problem of bilingualism which prevails at the moment and the inadmissible response of the department which has just dismissed or suspended two French-speaking air controllers because they were bold enough to speak French in Dorval, can the minister tell the House if the Quebec government has made representations concerning this matter and if so what steps he intends to take to check this chronic disease which weakens the French fact more and more throughout Canada and more specifically in Quebec?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of any representation made by the province of Quebec on this particular point in the last couple of days since this situation arose but I will make inquiries for the hon. member and advise him.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for the Status of Women in Canada. As International Women's Year is drawing to a close, can the minister tell the House what steps he has already taken or intends to take in an effort to heal the sickeningly dim-witted or even moronic image of women all too often portrayed, or should I say betrayed, by the advertising media.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which was discussed during a conference called "Action 75 plus", which was held in Ottawa recently. Following this conference, the Canadian Advertisers' Association has set up a special workshop to consider this question. I trust the Canadian Advertisers' Association will take the necessary steps to improve the situation in this respect which, as the hon. member has pointed out, is most unsatisfactory.

December 10, 1975
Oral Questions
[English]	SOCIAL SECURITY



HOUSING


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the minister responsible for housing, but in his absence I should like to address it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the avowed intent of the AHOP program was to provide low-cost housing for Canadians, and in view of the fact that some of these houses are now being sold at a capital gain, would the Prime Minister entertain the thought of having a first refusal provision written into CMHC contracts so that more housing can be provided for Canadians rather than as a means of gaining additional capital funding.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and take it up with my minister.



ASSISTED HOME OWNERSHIP PROGRAM-ALLEGED REFUSAL OF ROYAL TRUST AND ROYAL BANK TO RECEIVE APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Royal Trust Company and the Royal Bank refuse to receive applications from AHOP applicants, even though they have qualified in every other way, and that the Royal Bank has notified the regional representative of AHOP in Vancouver that he should no longer send applicants for AHOP to the Royal Bank.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would repeat the first part of his question. I think I might be familiar with the nature of the problem, and I might be able to answer.


Benno Friesen: Is the minister aware that Royal Trust Company and the Royal Bank have refused to receive applications from AHOP applicants who have qualified in every other way, and that the representative of the Royal Bank has written to the representative of AHOP in the western region stating that he is no longer supposed to send applicants to the Royal Bank?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that at all. I am not at all familiar with the situation with regard to Royal Trust. But I have had very extensive discussions with the vice-president, who I believe is in charge of mortgage operations for the Royal Bank, which is participating. There might have been some difficulties with regard to the period of amortization, but I believe that has been worked out, and if the hon. member's constituent would have his manager contact Mr. Peter Carter at the Royal Bank in Montreal, he might be able to have this matter straightened out.



PROPOSED SOCIAL SERVICES ACT-DATE OF CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT ON ADMINISTRATION AND JURISDICTION

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to the envisaged social services act. Can the minister advise whether he has lined up a time for meeting his provincial counterparts? There has been some indication that this would happen either in January or February. Is the minister optimistic in terms of an agreement being reached at that particular time?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I will say that it will be next February 3 and 4. The answer to the second part is yes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In an article in the Globe and Mail of December 9 the following is stated:
Mr. Lalonde said earlier he expected the proposals for a new Social Services Act separating income security from social services will be accepted by provincial welfare ministers at their next conference in January or February and passed in Parliament by the end of 1976.
If those remarks are true, is the minister now stating that there has been agreement in the interim with respect to administration costs, jurisdictional problems and administration? Has there been agreement in the interim so that the minister can be optimistic, if indeed those are his words in that press report?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have consulted all the ministers of social welfare of the country during a recent tour of the provinces. I have every reason to believe that the jurisdictional or administrative problems which might arise in respect of a new law on social services have been thoroughly resolved, and I have no reason to think that any particular difficulty will surface in these two areas at the next meeting.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the Auditor General's report which indicated that the National Energy Board toward the end of its 1974-75 year charged $90,000 of its operating costs to the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, which was a clear attempt to circumvent the control of parliament on spending. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that this is in contravention of the Financial Administration Act and the Criminal Code in the area of criminal breach of trust, whether he will refer this incident to the Department of Justice for a legal
December 10, 1975

opinion as to whether the parties involved and responsible should be prosecuted.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter. I have some cause to be sceptical about the question as stated by the hon. member.


Peter Colwell Bawden: In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance was in charge of the area which governed the National Energy Board at the time of the fraudulent conversion, will the Prime Minister say whether he will take steps to ensure that when looking into this matter it will be on an impartial basis, and will he assure the House that the facts which come out are brought before the House so that the House can judge how this was conducted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member knows, the matter was referred yesterday to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and whatever facts he wants to ascertain he can do so at that committee.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Was the minister able to persuade the mayor and council of Vancouver to agree that the United Nations conference on Human Settlements should go on as planned?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I did not attempt to persuade the council. I thought that would be presumptuous for a federal minister. I pointed out that we respected their views on a moral issue, and indeed, shared many of them, but we gave our reasons for not being able to accede to their request. I understand, however-and this is on hearsay- that last night the council reversed its decision and now is welcoming the conference, as is the community as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POST OFFICE


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General in the hope of clarifying some of the information which has been floating around today: first, that the Anti-Inflation Board has been in contact with the union; second, that the Prime Minister said there had been contact between the Anti-Inflation Board and some members of the cabinet; and third, that the Anti-Inflation Board said earlier today that it would be making an announcement later today. The Postmaster General in his earlier response hid behind the word "official". In view of these alleged facts I ask the
Oral Questions
Postmaster General if there has been any contact between the Anti-Inflation Board and himself, and if so, what was the information imparted?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there has been absolutely no contact, officially or unofficially, between myself and the Anti-Inflation Board. I repeat what I have said all month, and that is that I would be pleased to appear before that board, if it were found necessary by the board, to help clarify certain portions or parts of the collective agreement which the board may feel needs clarifying, particularly on behalf of the labour movement. I think that is precisely what I said in an earlier response to the right hon. gentleman.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just honourable.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member can read what he wants into it. I am unaware of any official statement by the Anti-Inflation Board. I simply indicated that there were other duties and suggested that they have a lot to keep themselves busy with.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: In view of the remarks of the Postmaster General just now, I should like to ask if he has made an official offer of an official request to appear before the Anti-Inflation Board.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, Mr. Speaker, for the very simple reason that as the hon. gentleman knows-or as I just tried to tell him-there has been no communication, officially or unoffically, between myself and the board. To the best of my knowledge there is no official statement by the AntiInflation Board. Perhaps that is why it is having a press conference later in the day. These questions are all based on speculative stories which have been appearing in the press. I simply repeat what I have been saying all along, that I offered officially, with regard to this collective agreement, to appear before that board and to help clarify any areas of ambiguity which the board feels may or could result in a negative reaction to the settlement.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is there any truth to the report that certain federal departments are to be relocated	from	Ottawa, the nation's capital,	to
Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I	know of	no department moving to	Montreal but	thehon.	member	knows	that it is part of	the policy of	the
government to decentralize the administration of the government to various regions of the country so far as possible. That is the reason for instance, that certain services of the Department of Supply and Services were established in the riding of the hon. member for Matane some months ago. That is why the Mint has been decentralized to Win-
9896

December 10, 1975
Parliamentary Secretaries
nipeg, and the government will continue to follow this policy of decentralization.


Leonard C. Jones: Is there any consideration being given to relocating or decentralizing some departments or offices to the Atlantic province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Decentralization comes under the President of the Treasury Board. He is the one who discusses this at the suggestion of various ministers, and I can assure the hon. member that the government is hoping to decentralize its services to many parts of the country. Of course, the Maritime provinces are prime candidates for consideration.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Sharp.

[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on agriculture-Mr. Daudlin.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions:
December 2, 1975-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, June 12, 1975, be concurred in.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, at the next sitting of the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on a question that is of interest to all Canadians who love freedom, and in particular those of the Canadian race who placed before me this afternoon a memorandum concerning six women, whose names are given, who are imprisoned in labour camps in the U.S.S.R. and who have committed no offence. These Canadians of Ukranian origin would have been tremendously interested if they had been here today to see the reaction of the members of the Liberal party against reference of a matter like this-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Unfortunately the members cannot be identified because of the numerous groups apparently joined together against a perfectly responsible and reason-

able request that I made to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), has a large responsibility, if not the largest of all, for External Affairs.
These Ukranian people are on Parliament Hill today because it is Human Rights Day for purpose of asking why it has been, that having brought this matter to the attention of the government on December 2 and asked that the matter of the women imprisoned as political prisoners be brought up during the third committee debate at the United Nations, the Canadian delegation did not raise the matter even though telegrams had been sent and appeals made. Nothing was done.
The answer given by the Prime Minister-the pretended answer was one that I wish people of Ukranian origin across this country could have heard and have seen his conduct when he gave it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: -when he gave that irresponsible answer to the question I raised. Mr. Speaker, I did not know that disorder ruled in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has the floor on a point of order. Since last Easter it has been the procedure that points of order to be raised during the question period should be deferred until three o'clock. The right hon. member for Prince Albert has been given the floor under that procedure to raise a point of order. With all due respect, however, I must caution him, as he must well know, that at this time if it is simply a criticism of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his conduct in answering or failing to answer a question, that is not a point of order. I would therefore ask the right hon. gentleman to state his point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question was directed to the Prime Minister and his reply was a surreptitious exhibition of this kind of answer. Instead of giving an answer the question was turned over to the parliamentary secretary to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gray:: And very well indeed.


John George Diefenbaker: With great respect to her fine ability- and I mean that most sincerely-parliamentary secretaries have no authority to speak for the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I asked what the government's policy is. This practice has been going on for several months and it is something that cannot be permitted. It is not permitted in the mother of parliaments-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The groans over there indicate a lack of knowledge regarding parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 10, 1975


John George Diefenbaker: Parliamentary secretaries may deal with routine matters, but on questions of policy as important as this one, concerning the freedom of the individual, the only person who can answer in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs is the Prime Minister, or an acting minister.
The point of order I want Your Honour to consider is that parliamentary secretaries, having no responsibility or connection with the cabinet in any way, cannot answer for government policy or with respect to those matters encompassed by government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs rises on a point of order.


Monique Bégin: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some clarifications. I am even tempted to call this a question of privilege since a strange situation exists from the fact that I am a female member of parliament and there is talk about the status of women in other countries, but I will not deal with that. On the same point of order, I want to state that, although the role of a parliamentary secretary may not be very well defined yet but will eventually be over the years, the fact still remains that I took an oath of office and limited myself to the answers which come under the functions of the minister whom the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called upon me to assist. I would like to state that the multicul-turalism policy is a known government policy for which a minister is responsible. It was implemented by this government and I did not broach the subject, thinking that the whole House knew it quite well.
Our human rights policy in that respect is just as clear. I answered what I think is not a routine question but a question of representations by a group which fits perfectly in the functions of a parliamentary secretary. I said and I can say the name of the person representing the group of women who will be coming to see me in 20 minutes if I can leave the House. I told Mrs. Helene Dubois as soon as contact was made with my office that it would give me great pleasure to receive this afternoon the delegation she heads. It is not my fault if the object of the representation was communicated first to the opposition. I want to assure the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that it is within the functions of parliamentary secretaries to do what I did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert has raised a point of order concerning the rights of parliamentary secretaries giving answers to questions that have been put to ministers specifically. In this particular instance it may be recalled that the question was put by the right hon. gentleman to the right hon. Prime Minister. The right hon. Prime Minister made an initial response to the question and then in turn referred the response to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss Begin). I would
Parliamentary Secretaries
rather believe that that practice having been followed in this particular instance, it would be impeccable. The larger question has been raised, however, as to whether parliamentary secretaries in general have the power to respond for their ministers in their absence, particularly in respect of large policy questions which have been raised.
I know the matter has been considered in the past, but naturally I do not have the precedents involved at my fingertips for consideration. I would therefore like to take an opportunity to review them before making a larger pronouncement on the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to consider this matter I would just make a remark. We would gladly be guided by Your Honour's decision in the future on this particular matter, but when studying the representation of the right hon. gentleman if you follow his suggestion of referring to the mother of parliaments, I would urge that you look at the situation there, Sir, and see that the ministry is much larger and of course the parliamentary secretary does perform a different role. We could avoid this by naming parliamentary secretaries to the positions of junior ministers as is the practice in the United Kingdom.
[DOT] <1510)
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the right hon. gentleman wants to refer this to the mother of parliaments, as he puts it, it would be more reasonable to follow the practice there. The Prime Minister only appears in the House to answer questions every fortnight or so; again, these are written questions.


John George Diefenbaker: Twice a week.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if this were the situation, I should certainly be prepared to answer all questions, if they were written in advance and I had to come into the House only once a week or every two weeks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Prime Minister in the U.K. does this twice a week.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If we are to refer to the situation in the U.K., Mr. Speaker, I hope you will look at the total picture. I am sure you will.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, apropos of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) just said, it is apparent, quite apart from remarks he made about the British parliament, that he has reserved to himself the right to make further submissions on this matter. If he is to be allowed an answer, I hope that we too will be permitted to answer and that there will be a full discussion before Your Honour rules on the point.
As to the Prime Minister's comment about parliamentary secretaries answering questions on behalf of ministries regardless of their size, let me say that perhaps this point is directed more to the competency of a ministry than its size.


Mr. Speaker:: I assure all hon. members that before I make any ruling which could interfere with the practice
21 130-51/2

December 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions
established for many years by this House, I shall certainly allow ample opportunity for further discussion.


TRANSPORT
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) I should like to table in both official languages order in council P.C. 1975-2780 dated November 25, 1975, approving the capital budget of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority for the period January 1, 1975, to December 31, 1975, that was laid before parliament for the additional period from January 1, 1976, to March 31, 1976.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I trust there will be no objection if I announce the questions on the order paper to be answered.


Walter David Baker: Not as long as you do it
correctly.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,244, 3,486 and 3,556.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Does the Manitoba Tent and Awning Company have a monopoly on the provision ol rucksacks as contracted by the Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence?
2.	In the past five years, how many rucksacks have been purchased by the Company and what have been the costs incurred?
3.	On what date was authorization given for the purchase on October 4, 1974, of 7,631 rucksacks from the Manitoba Tent and Awning Company?
4.	Were militia units of the mobile command of DND issued rucksacks prior to October 1974?
5.	In June 1974, was there any knowledge that rucksacks to the militia units mobile command would be requisitioned?
6.	How often does the Department of Supply and Services provide market trends on a commodity group basis to material managers of departments and agencies?
7.	What is the cost of providing this information to the material managers within DSS?
8.	Do these market trends forecast market price increases and consider inflationary spirals on goods and commodities?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services

and National Defence as follows: 1. No. Tenders are invited for each requirement from every known source of supply.
2.	In the past five years, DSS has contracted for the purchase of 38,590 rucksacks from Manitoba Tent and Awning Company with a total value of $960,823.88.
3.	September 13, 1974.
4 and 5. Yes.
6.	Once a year. The information is based on the industrial knowledge and buying experience of DSS during the year and is the subject of a letter circulated to Federal Government departments and agencies.
7.	The cost is minimal.
8.	Yes, the letter endeavours to forecast market price increases.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: From October 1974 to October 1975, what projects have been approved by the government under the winter capital works fund for the Constituencies of (a) Saskatoon-Biggar (b) Saskatoon-Humboldt and, in each case (i) what are the details (ii) what are the locations (iii) what amounts were involved?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is: (a) (i) Board of Saskatoon (West) School Unit No. 42, additions and renovations to a school, (ii) Asquith School, Asquith, Saskatchewan, (iii) Estimated total construction cost of $410,278. Federal loan approved $68,750. (b) (i) Board of Education, St. Paul's Roman Catholic D.S.S. No. 20, additions and renovations to schools, and new school construction. (ii) Cardinal Leger School, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, St. Patrick's School, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; East College Park School, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Bishop Klein School, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Holy Cross High School, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; E. D. Feehan High School, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, (iii) Estimated total construction cost of $1,307,984. Federal loan approved $365,000. It should be noted that the closing date for receipt of applications from the provinces under this program was September 30, 1974. Including the above two projects, the total number of applications received from the Province of Saskatchewan and approved for both constituencies is as follows: Saskatoon-Biggar-fourteen projects, with an estimated total construction cost of $5,159,747, involving Federal loans totalling $943,504. Saskatoon-Humboldt-nine projects, with an estimated total construction cost of $4,833,897, involving Federal loans totalling $1,057,667.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is there an indoor parking facility at the Mirabel Airport and (a) if so, how many cars will it hold (b) if not, are there any plans to install one?
2.	Are there any plans to install an indoor parking facility at Terminal 2 in the Toronto International Airport?
3.	With reference to the answer to question No. 3,176, which stated that at Vancouver International Airport the feasibility of a parking structure was being studied, is the Minister of Transport aware that Air
December 10, 1975

Canada presented a report to the Department of Transport some years ago regarding indoor parking at the Vancouver International Airport?
4.	Did a private parking corporation make representations to the government regarding the installation of an indoor parking facility at the Vancouver International Airport?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Yes. Mirabel's three level parking structure, with two levels covered, has a capacity for 2,500 cars.
2.	Yes. Construction has commenced on the first module of a five level parking structure for Toronto's Terminal 2.
3.	Neither Transport Canada nor Air Canada have been able to identify the report referred to in connection with indoor parking at Vancouver International Airport.
4.	Yes. In 1973 Transport Canada received a proposal for indoor parking facilities at Vancouver Airport. The proposal will be considered during Transport Canada's feasibility study for a parking structure.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner that Bill C-20, respecting citizenship, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, when I called it ten o'clock last Monday I had been complimenting the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) for his sense of history and timeliness in bringing forward this legislation so close to Christmas. I think this shows his great wisdom, as I am sure the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) will agree.
I was about to compliment the Secretary of State for including in this bill recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. We have, over the years, treated our women with benign neglect, if I may quote from another public document on the status of women. We have neglected them in the work force, in the community,
Citizenship
neglected their education, and not given them their just opportunities. These remarks are pertinent at any time, not merely in International Women's Year. Therefore this bill represents a significant and commendable step forward on the part of the government. I commend it for adopting at least part of the recommendations of the royal commission.
The bill improves the position of husbands or wives of Canadian citizens and their children. Indeed in that regard this bill is a significant advance and brings the law into line with thinking in the community.
The bill deals with something else important, to which the minister referred in passing, the question of the British subject. I think it is correct to say that, by virtue of this bill, we are to treat those who are not British, and not member of the Commonwealth of Nations, in the same way as we treat British subjects. On May 21 the minister dealt with this matter when he said, as reported on page 5985 of Hansard:
... a British subject... is not questioned on his knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. He is not tested on his knowledge of the English or French language. No interview is conducted to determine his character. He does not appear before a judge to take the oath of allegiance unless he himself requests it. Normally, he simply takes the oath before an examiner at the time of application.
By that statement the minister implied that we were wrong to treat the British subject differently. But I suggest there was good reason for treating him differently, as I suggested previously. The British subject, by virtue of the accident of history, birth, geography, and familiarity with traditions, was aware of our basic institutions, of our parliamentary system which, basically, was and still is modelled on the British system. So there was some justification for treating him differently. Yet the minister seemed to question this practice. From my reading of his speech, and the bill, the minister seems to think there should not be that difference.
The Minister does distinguish between those from Commonwealth countries and those from non-Commonwealth countries, as the bill refers to citizens of the Commonwealth. Perhaps in that he is saying he does not completely move away from the position that there is a matter of tradition, training, background, and education in Commonwealth countries which would not make it alien for special consideration to be given to those people.
We must bear in mind that many people who come to this country have enjoyed the British parliamentary system, British justice, and other protections of the law as a matter of tradition. An advantage is enjoyed by the citizen from Great Britain, a Commonwealth country, or any other democratic country, English or French speaking, in terms of the necessity of absorbing new traditions.
We briefly touched on the question of the potential one-year credit for what might be termed, in parentheses in the sense of the Citizenship Act, legal residence in Canada. I did not deal with the question of the three or five-year period.
I reviewed the minister's speech of May 21, 1975, to see if there was anything other than a sense or principle of

December 10, 1975
Citizenship
arbitrariness that could apply equally to the three or five-year period. In his speech he indicated that it was his feeling, not a matter of principle, that the three-year period was less arbitrary and less unfair than the five-year period. I take it that was the government's feeling as well.
I will be most interested in the comments made before the committee. I hope that not merely native Canadians will have a chance to appear before the committee. I would like to hear some groups representing new Canadians, immigrants and landed immigrants. They should give evidence not only with respect to this bill but with respect to the three or five-year period.
In the course of representing my constituency in this matter, as well as the matter to which I alluded a few days ago, I come in contact with groups of people who have recently come to Canada. Some are first generation, some second generation, and some landed immigrants who are not yet citizens. They have spoken to me about the three-year period as opposed to the five-year period. I think these people are representative of groups to be found in any part of Canada. They had a mixed view with regard to the shortening of the period of time. I thought it would be otherwise, but that was their view. Some felt that the three-year period would be alright. As I said, these are not native born Canadians, but landed immigrants and others.
One woman who spoke to me said that she regarded citizenship as something very precious. She only recently received her citizenship. She regards this as something that was earned, not only through good behaviour and staying outside the criminal courts, but through knowledge and a number of other things. I would not have paid too much attention to that view except it came from a particular person for whom I have extremely high regard.
I ask the minister to instruct his colleagues on the committee that will deal with this matter to give the widest possible scope to the representations that will be made by the various ethnic groups. If the three-year period is sound, it should be adopted. However, if there is some question about it, particularly among the groups that I have mentioned, and indeed generally in the country, we should listen to those views before making up our minds.
I want to deal now with something the minister dealt with at page 5985 of his speech. It is with regard to the proposed change in the requirement that an applicant be of good character. As I understand the minister's argument, he feels this is not measurable. When dealing with these matters, the minister felt it would be better if we had something that was measurable such as criminal behaviour, a breach of the Criminal Code, or a breach of the Narcotic Control Act. Evidence of a perpetual inability to abide by the law, even though it might be small in terms of the wrong that would be committed in the normal sense, would be something measurable. It would be a record to which the minister or someone else could point.
On the face of it this sounds pretty good. However, there is something which concerns me. I believe this provision is a calculated-and I do not use that word in the wrong sense-downgrading of the citizenship court. It will make that court nothing more than a rubber stamp.
I am sure the minister's field of knowledge goes far beyond that of mine, but having regard to the calibre of the 
men and women who make up our citizenship courts, their devotion to their discretionary duties under the act, and the good record which the citizenship court enjoys, this downgrading is unfortunate. What is really being said is that citizenship will only be granted in terms of those things that are measurable.
I think the minister wants to be fair. However, in trying to codify the law, giving it parameters that are geometrically ascertainable, he is depriving the citizenship court of a very important jurisdiction that is not within the parameters of the bureaucrat to decide. His answer is going to be, "Well, in certain cases we have ministerial discretion." I do not mean any disrespect to the minister or his colleagues in this context but how better is the minister fitted to exercise discretion than the courts? The ministry is political. There is nothing wrong with that.


Mr. Nowlan:: It is paralyzed.


Walter David Baker: My hon. friend says the ministry is paralysed. I think there is some evidence that that is so. But aside from the paralysis there is a political aspect to decisions which are made by a cabinet, by a ministry, or by an order in council. That is a fact and I am not arguing with it. The one thing a citizenship court can do in terms of the real difficulties which face a person who may not be able to obtain citizenship is at least to give the appearance, and I suggest, the substance of maintaining impartiality. I hope the minister will consider this in relation to the removal from the citizenship code of those words "of good character" which could allow a judge, perhaps, to look behind certain of the documents presented as to a person's behaviour and find in that person's favour. As we try to protect ourselves on one hand we may do damage to the cause on the other.
What is wrong in a society which is opening its doors to people who are qualified under its rules, saying that you must establish yourself in terms of the language, the government, and all these other things we recognize? You must show, as the minister says, that you have not breached the Criminal Code, that you have been a good citizen with respect to that. What is wrong with reserving to, really, the people of Canada, whether native-born people of Canada or people who have come here as immigrants and have become citizens and have elected a government-what is wrong with reserving to them and their government, or perhaps better a citizenship court, an inquiry in the right place with respect to this whole intangible of good character?
The government in this bill is attempting to take discretion away from the citizenship judge. I believe this is the effect of it. It is becoming a bit more like a rubber stamp and we are substituting therefor in essence a ministerial discretion. I think the end the minister is probably trying to achieve in this bill, to evidence fairness, would be better served if that discretion were left with a body or organization which could not be termed political even by the most dishonest among us.
This is why I feel very strongly that the judge should not become a rubber stamp, and that the government and the machinery established by the government, that is to say
December 10, 1975

the citizenship court, ought to have the right to look into the question of good character.
I have an instance that came to me, which brought this home to me as an important omission from this bill, namely, the reservation to someone in authority of the question of good character. There is a constituent of mine who has two children, both of them girls. There is a person living in my constituency who is, in effect, watching and besetting those two girls. That man has never committed a criminal offence. The girls know it is happening, the father knows it is happening, the police now know it is happening, and I know it is happening.
They may never get a conviction against this person, who is a landed immigrant, yet in my judgment, and I think in the minister's judgment if the case were brought before him, or in the judgment of a citizenship court, while he has not contravened those parameters in which the minister is interested, any right minded person would say that that person is not fit to be here. It was perhaps a mistake to allow him here in the first place, though I think not from checking the records. But having come here, he is not a proper person, if we have a choice, to whom citizenship ought to be granted. That is the kind of case which has come to my attention in support of the submission that there is a case to be made for the vesting of power in somebody that would appear to be impartial. I understand the reason behind this omission, and I want to make that clear to the minister. But I really think it is important, and that it is one which ought to be considered.
I shall quote the minister again. I do not disagree with what he said. He said, as reported at page 5986 of Hansard:
Canadian citizenship enables one to do several things: to vote, to run for public office, to carry a Canadian passport, to exercise certain activities where citizenship is a statutory pre-requisite.
Then he went on to deal with intangibles. I must say I think citizenship carries with it something far beyond those things, and far beyond the sense of belonging to which the minister later alluded in that portion of his speech. I think citizenship carries with it not only activities that the new citizen is enabled to engage in as a result of citizenship, but carries with it obligations that the new citizen, as well as the older citizen, owes to his community in terms of behaviour. I think it is not unreasonable that provision ought to be there in the law of the receiving country for recognizing judicially a "man of good character" in that broad sense. While admitting that mistakes may be made from time to time. I think it is not unreasonable to ask the minister, when it comes before the committee, whether or not that ought not still to be in the bill.
I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer. I want to thank the minister for being here. He was here the other evening when I spoke; I merely want to reiterate the importance citizenship courts have in the scheme of things, and the fact that I regret very much they seem to be downgraded somewhat in the legislation. The experiment with respect to citizenship courts has been a relatively short one, and I wonder if the ministry is not being perhaps a bit premature in terms of the judgment it is making with respect to them.
Citizenship


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put on record a few remarks on this bill. As everyone knows, it was introduced in the House and given first reading in October, 1974. It came on for second reading late in May of 1975 and we are now continuing that stage before passing it on to committee. I do not know what the urgency is, but at any rate we are dealing with the bill today.
This bill contains certain positive points with which I very much agree-for instance, equal treatment of men and women. For example, an alien wife or the husband of a Canadian citizen wanting to gain citizenship will be subject to the same waiting period, and this is a good feature of the bill. A father or mother can apply to register a child as a Canadian citizen; derivation of citizenship can come from either parent. This is another excellent point for which I commend the minister. Another positive step is the reduction in the age of eligibility for citizenship from 21 years to 18. I have personally become acquainted with this sort of situation many times in cases where the parents have separated. The father can not be found or his permission can not be obtained, and this is another good feature in the bill.
There are some other provisions in the bill that I hope will be closely examined in committee. I say hope because I am becoming somewhat frustrated with the gerrymandering of the committees of this House. If we do not take hold of the situation in the new session, I think the whole committee system will go down the drain.
While I am discussing the provisions of the bill I might make reference to clause 33(1) in Part VIII dealing with the status of persons in Canada. This clause provides:
Real and personal property of every description may be taken, acquired, held and disposed of by a person who is not a Canadian citizen in the same manner in all respects as by a Canadian citizen; and a title to real and personal property of every description may be derived through, from or in succession to a person who is not a Canadian citizen in the same manner in all respects as through, from or in succession to a Canadian citizen.
The rights of owners of personal property who come from another country is a very delicate subject. I am well aware that many Canadians own property in countries other than Canada, so there is a reciprocal factor here. The provinces are very much aware of the problem. Indeed in my own particular riding, as a matter of fact in the town I live in, a whole block has been held by a citizen of Portugal for something like 10 years; the place is a shambles and the town is powerless to do anything about it. The owner of the property is always delinquent in his taxes, but just when the town is ready to seize his property for non-payment of taxes he pays a few back taxes and the same thing starts all over again. This sort of thing has been going on for about 10 years. He even threatened the town with law suits when it passed certain by-laws pertaining to commercial buildings, claiming that the by-laws inhibited him in developing the property.
Sooner or later this is an area about which we will have to take a firm stand. There are numerous instances like this in various parts of the country that I have come across; property is held and held and held, and nothing can be done about its appearance. In the instance I have cited the

December 10, 1975
Citizenship
town is called upon to inspect the property, to close up doors that have been broken into, repair windows and that sort of thing, yet it is powerless to take action.
Several hon. members who have spoken in this debate have referred to clause 5 of the bill. I think unfortunately this particular clause has either been misread or misinterpreted, because I gather from the remarks of some members that they are under the impression that if a person is in Canada illegally and he subsequently becomes a landed immigrant, half of the time he was here illegally counts towards citizenship. That just is not so. I think a clear reading of the clause indicates that the maximum time he can count toward citizenship is one year. It is unfortunate that so much emphasis has been put on this point. It is not entirely clear from the way the clause is written, and it could probably have been drafted a little better than it is. It could have been couched in clearer language with perhaps an explanatory side note, but that is not the case.
One aspect that exercises me about the question of citizenship is that it is not tied in with immigration. I think we all agree that we should go back to the old system where citizenship and immigration were in the same department. I do not think they should ever have been separated; the two are interlinked. Examination of the various speeches on this subject in the House invariably reveals that immigration is discussed along with citizenship.
I believe at one time the government had an immigration resettlement program. I do not know what happened to it, and I recognize there are difficulties in directing people where they can and cannot go. But at the present time tremendous pressure is being put on the larger municipalities, basically those in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver where the bulk of immigrants to Canada seem to settle. Tremendous pressure is put on housing requirements and services in the municipalities, as well as upon the educational system.
I was talking to the mayor of Toronto some months ago and he mentioned that something like 50 per cent of the children of immigrants going into the public school system for the first time had either a poor knowledge or no knowledge of English. I am not saying that is their fault, but we must bear in mind that the municipalities are trying to handle a problem that results from the federal government's immigration policy.
I am fortunate enough to have travelled rather extensively throughout the world. At the last count I had visited, I think, 35 different countries, some under totalitarian governments. I am always glad to get back to Canada, and I am very proud of my country and of my Canadian citizenship. While abroad I have been approached, as I am sure members on all sides of the House are when they travel abroad, by people who want to come to Canada. They ask how they can get to Canada, what I can do to get them here, and how they can become a Canadian citizen.
Looking at some of these people, Mr. Speaker, you cannot help but feel compassion for them. Some of them came in contact with missionaries from Canada when they were children; they were educated by missionaries, and on reaching adulthood found they were isolated from their own citizens in their own country. They see the advantages and privileges we have in this country, and there is a

desire on their part to come here. By and large we have a reputation for tolerance, for freedom, and for freedom of expression, and we certainly do not want to change that.
We must look carefully at this matter of citizenship. The suggestion of reducing the time from five years to three years is one that bothers me greatly, particularly when I look at what other countries are doing, and I think that is a proper thing to do. We see that Britain has a five-year waiting period; the United States has a five-year waiting period; France has a five-year waiting period; and in Belgium under some circumstances the waiting period is up to ten years; West Germany has shorter periods, but the shortest is five years; Sweden has a ten-year waiting period; New Zealand has a five-year waiting period for British subjects; and I believe Australia has a three-year period for British subjects, with a longer period of time for others. When we get the bill to the committee we should look very closely and carefully at what other countries are doing before reducing this to three years. Certainly this is one point that bothers many members on this side of the House.
I have had some objections, like the hon. member who spoke on the matter earlier, expressed by people who have come to Canada as immigrants and have obtained their citizenship after five years, or as they put it, they have earned their citizenship, and they feel somewhat hurt that now someone may possibly come to this country and meet all the criteria, and obtain citizenship in three years.
There are many points that we can discuss in respect of this bill, but the one thing that really concerns me is what will happen to the bill when it goes to the committee. We have seen a great deal of manoeuvring in committees since the last election and many of us are becoming concerned. On a number of occasions when we have attempted to take a vote which may have gone against the government, the government members have left the committee in order that there would not be a quorum. I think that is deplorable action on their part.
We have also seen quite a bit of manoeuvring by the steering committees. On occasion when the members of a steering committee have decided on a course of action for the committee, when the committee itself meets someone has moved a motion to set aside the recommendations of that steering committee, substituting another recommendation-in fact exercising a form of closure or guillotine on the committee by requiring it to report back to the House within a certain time period. There have been numerous occasions of this in the past several months.
What will happen if this sort of thing continues is that when bills return to the House they will be the subject of amendment after amendment after amendment. This will frustrate our procedures. The purpose of a committee, as I understand it, is to find the facts and make recommendations to the House. Committees are charged by the House of Commons with the responsibility of eliciting information, examining the legislation, and recommending a course of action. This is not what is happening.
There are so many important aspects of this bill I am wondering just what will happen when it reaches committee. Will it receive the same kind of treatment as other bills
December 10, 1975

in the past, or will the government see the error of its ways and allow the bill to be considered by the committee unhampered by this kind of manoeuvring? Will the committee be allowed to obtain information from witnesses, from ministers, and from interested parties in all segments of society on this important subject?
I cannot understand the urgency of reducing this waiting period for citizenship from five years to three years, but I am prepared to be convinced that this should be done. If someone can present good arguments, and I believe some hon. members have some, I will certainly be prepared to listen to them. I have listened to those who have spoken so far and I have read many of the speeches, but I still feel we should maintain the five-year period.
After listening to the remarks of the minister the other day I felt there were circumstances in which the waiting period should be reduced. The minister referred to a student who had been here for a number of years studying in this country, and I think such a case would be valid in respect of reducing the time period. This is one of the things we should be allowed to consider.
I sincerely hope that when we get the bill to committee we will not witness political manoeuvring. I hope we will not see a great deal of movement on the government side toward the guillotine, forcing the committee to report back to the House by a specific date. The committee should be allowed full range to discuss all segments of the bill and to call witnesses. Perhaps it would be of value to call some of the citizenship judges from around this area, if that is convenient. They could come before the committee and give us the advantage of their experience.
That is about the sum and substance of what I have to say, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see some parts of this bill. There are some positive steps suggested, and I commend the minister for bringing those suggestions forward. At the same time I have reservations about other clauses of the bill. It is important that we be allowed to examine this bill thoroughly and completely in the committee. If there are some particularly sensitive areas in respect of which we want discussion there is nothing to prohibit us from holding meetings in camera. Let us not gang the committee; let us allow the committee a full ranging and complete examination of this bill, with a full opportunity to express its views in its report back to the House so that this piece of legislation can be a credit to citizenship and something we can support.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity of making a few remarks on Bill C-20 as I think it is a very important bill, for which the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) should be commended.
I believe this is the third day on which we have dealt with Bill C-20 in the House of Commons. In view of that fact, and my feeling that there has been a great deal of discussion so far on this matter, I will limit my remarks to what I think are some of the highlights.
I hope it will not be too long before members on all sides of the House agree that this bill should go to the committee for the kind of careful study it deserves. It seems this is not a controversial bill, although there are several clauses about which some of my colleagues are concerned. Their
Citizenship
concerns do not seem to be too serious. I hope we can get the bill into committee as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of this day.
The other night as I listened to my colleagues on the other side of the House, a number of my friends came around and asked me what I thought about citizenship and immigration. I said to some of them that I think it probably is just a little late to ask that question, and that probably they should have asked it of my ancestors. I think they had a tremendously generous immigration policy. It is perhaps a little late in a number of ways. One of my good friends in Kamloops, a former chief, said to me that as he looks across the river and sees that the white man is building a cement basement, he knows he intends to stay here a little while.
The bill before us does some very important things. It reflects the thinking of modern-day people living in a very fast moving world. A number of adjectives have been used to describe this particular bill. The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) described it as progressive. It is a very progressive piece of legislation.
The act we have now came into force I believe on January 1, 1947. It has been amended in a number of minor ways since that time. I think that is quite a long period in which to have such an important piece of legislation on the books without serious amendments.
One of the characteristics of the present law that has bothered me for some time is that it clearly plays favourites. It gives rights to men that it does not give to women. British subjects seem to have a special status. They are favoured over immigrants to Canada from other countries. I am glad Bill C-20 corrects all these inequities in the present law.
I am particularly pleased about the clauses that give women equal status with men. Now when we have gone though the process of having the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, International Women's Year, and other important measures to give equality to women, we wonder how we could have been so dumb. Why did we not do many of these things a long time ago? Many of them are overdue. The report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women pointed out five ways in which the present act discriminates against women.
As the law now stands the alien wife of a Canadian citizen wishing to become a citizen here requires only one year of residence. The alien husband of a Canadian wife has to wait a full five years. Bill C-20 provides that the husband or wife of a Canadian citizen must only fulfil the standard residency requirement before becoming a citizen.
Women who had married an alien before 1947 lost their citizenship. Most of these people were not even aware that they were no longer classed as Canadians. Now when they apply for a passport they are told that they must first become Canadian citizens. It is easy to understand the consternation of these women who were born and raised in Canada and who have made their own contribution to this land when suddenly they find that this right has been taken from them. These revisions will also correct this injustice.
9904

December 10, 1975
Citizenship
The act as it now stands only permits the father to apply on behalf of a minor child so that the child may obtain citizenship. This has been changed so that either parent may make such an application. The same arrangement applies for adoptive parents. These are very progressive changes. There are other changes being made to the legislation that are important, but I think so far as women are concerned these highlight the concerns they have had.
The new provision to allow a person to apply for citizenship at 18 years of age instead of 25 years of age also is very progressive. This favourable change reflects the age of voting and the age of majority recognized in most laws of the land.
I should say, however, I am a little disappointed that the inequality in the voting age is not yet corrected in the Indian Act. Indian people still must wait until they are 21 years of age before they can legally vote in the band council elections conducted under the Indian Act. This is an injustice of which I hope the National Indian Brotherhood and other Indian organizations in the country will take heed, and endeavour to correct as soon as possible. I realize the ramifications involved, but I would say to my Indian brothers that this denial of rights to a large number of young potential Indian voters far outweighs any of the commitments that the organizations might have for the long-term plan of changes.
A bone of contention over the years regarding citizenship has been the term "British subject". This has been dealt with by a number of people here with much justification. I always felt uneasy about the term because in no way did I feel I was a British subject.
I can understand how people coming from many other lands must feel. To me the term "British subject" connotes that a person comes from Britain.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Len Marchand: I am stating my opinion. Do not shout no!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I protest.


Len Marchand: Then protest, but to me it also suggests that Canada is still a colony of Britain. As a person whose roots go pretty far back in this country I feel this is very unfair to people who come to Canada from other lands.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Surely you do not have such an inferiority complex.


Len Marchand: How about the other way; I am sure no one should be treated as superior either. In the present law British subjects wishing to become Canadians must fulfill all the requirements necessary in respect of any other applicant, with two exceptions. First, the British subject does not have to be examined by a citizenship judge and, second, he does not have to attend a ceremony to take the oath of allegiance.
There will no longer be a privileged status for anyone. People wishing to become Canadian citizens will be treated the same regardless of where they come from.
(Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo).]
I was surprised to hear some of the opposition which came from the other side relating to the change in the act whereby a person could become a Canadian citizen in three years rather than five years. I must say I do not find any of the arguments put forward very convincing. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and others suggest that immigrants must have an adequate opportunity to adapt in economic as well as cultural and other ways before becoming citizens.
I was particularly surprised when my colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, suggested that the only purpose of this change is political motivation by the government which is receiving a considerable amount of representation from newly arrived immigrants who have families in other parts of the world and want them here. I should say that I really cannot see in any way how this could reflect the political motivation of a party or affect the outcome of elections. The real motivation I see behind this change is purely a human one.
It must be a very difficult and emotional experience for people to decide to move from their homeland to another land. This is a very human experience, so I think that once mature people have made the mature decision that they want to become citizens of another country, why should we put them through the agony of having to wait five years? In many cases I feel that people must have made up their minds within three years, and three years is probably too long.


Mr. Epp:: Why any time?


Len Marchand: Why is there an objection about five years?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is your argument.


Len Marchand: This is a very progressive change, and I welcome it.
Some hon. members mentioned citizenship court judges. I have attended ceremonies where citizens have come before citizenship judges, and I want to commend the judges on the very dignified and professional manner in which they handle their courts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: Some of my colleagues from both sides of the House have been citizenship court judges, and they do a tremendous job. They have played tremendous roles since this position was established. The reference in the bill to citizenship judges enhances their position, and so it should because theirs is a very important role.
In closing I should like to pay tribute to a number of private organizations in various parts of the country which help in the process of citizenship. In Kamloops it is the Soroptimist Club. These women make sure that those who receive their citizenship are made to feel very welcome. They do everything they can to help them adjust and to solve any problems, even after this waiting period of five years.
December 10, 1975

I am particularly happy to be a member of the Liberal party.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was listening; now you are spoiling it.


Len Marchand: The Liberal Party has a very human and realistic outlook on the way to treat people from other lands. I am particularly happy with the way people who have had special difficulties have been treated. Going back to the Hungarian revolt, I think Canadians responded tremendously well in bringing over people from Hungary when they were in difficulties back in 1956.
I am happy that we as Canadians welcome people from all parts of the world, and I hope that, as we move along with changes in the Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act, many of these basic principles we have discussed will be preserved. We must treat people on an equal basis regardless of where they come from.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), who has just spoken, attributed remarks I made the other evening to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), and I think he would like to attribute them to me as the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay, the constituency in which he was born.
f Translation]


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to take part in the discussion on the motion under consideration for the second reading and the reference of Bill C-20 respecting citizenship to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
As a member of the Special Joint Committee on Immigration Policy, I wish to take part in the debate. All the members of that committee have acquired considerable experience travelling throughout Canada to hear those who have arrived here and must wait for years before being accepted.
To situate that problem, I think we must consider that our country interests a lot of people, most of them coming from south-east countries as well as from India and elsewhere. However, we have a problem of which those people are unaware-our cold winter and a much higher standard of living than in their own country. In my opinion, those people do not know what they are getting into when they come to Canada and some had not expected the difficulties they face the moment they arrive or even two or three years later.
Mr. Speaker, in Canada one must first of all secure oneself against those problems by working every day to earn a living. There are however other problems. Immigrant children must attend schools where English or French is the main language. After a few years, they are greatly disappointed because they realize that their children, after having attended school for two, three or four years, learned nothing or almost nothing, are not prepared, do not see things as Canadians do, do not live the same way, etc.
Citizenship
We also have a problem that I consider very serious. The minister responsible for immigration is not also responsible for citizenship. I think both matters should fall under the same department. We have often heard of this problem from witnesses who appeared before the committee, and I agree with those who have to deal with it when they say that it is a major one. That boils down to the same thing. Before an immigrant can obtain Canadian citizenship, the authorities must establish his or her working experience before corning to a decision. The file must certainly travel from one department to the other, and the background information obtained from the Immigration Department is certainly taken into account when the time comes to decide whether or not to grant Canadian citizenship to an immigrant.
One cannot help wonder about those who are living outside the law or those who prefer living outside the law.
I am thinking, for instance, of tourists; they come here as tourists and end up finding a job somewhere, either on a farm, or in some manufacture, and when they have found a job, particularly in the area of services, where it is even less personal, for a town or a city, then they tend to change their names or to be less easily identifiable, and after four, five, six or seven years, we have somebody who wants to become a Canadian citizen, but we do not have his itinerary, we do not know where he comes from, what he has done, nothing at all.
The case of students is also well known, those students who are imposed upon us by all kinds of organizations. They come from everywhere and they are imposed upon us by all kinds of organizations, and still the provinces do not have any control over those students. I am referring to college or university students, who are either sent here by some fund, or under exchange programs, etc. They arrive here; they may study for two, three, four or five years. I have heard of some who studied in the university for eight years, they collect degrees, because they do not want to go back home; it is as simple as that. And so, they write to the foundation or the benevolent society which accepts them, especially in the province of Quebec where we are really at a disadvantage in this field. Why? Because they take the place of our own students, as there is not sufficient room for our own students in several universities; those students-I would call them perpetual students-keep on collecting diplomas. That is why I feel that the Department of Citizenship should be amalgamated with the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
There is also the matter of seasonal workers. We now accept seasonal workers in many cases when they cannot be found elsewhere in Canada. For instance, in northern Canada, we took in seasonal workers; now, today those workers have taken root here. Most are good citizens, honest people, and because they now have roots here, they do not want to leave Canada. But under the terms of their hiring contract as seasonal workers the Department of Citizenship cannot accept them as Canadian citizens. We therefore end up with a hodge-podge, a problem. When attemps are made to send them back to their own country, or when they are forced to go back, and all the more so then we have to resort to deportation, they appeal to the
21130-6/4

December 10, 1975
Citizenship
courts, if they have $100 for a lawyer, and appeals follow without end.
I think that these problems are very important and should be dealt with this afternoon. We should consider the minister's idea, and in particular his views, to be able to get rid of all these problems we have with the immigrant.
In Washington for instance, where I went to discuss this problem of immigration, I was very surprised to learn that they receive immigrants they cannot get rid of afterwards. In American terms they describe them as people who jumped over the fence. We would call them people who jumped over the border. They lost control in some southern states, that is to say they have on their territory some people who are not American citizens and who cannot become American citizens because of their status. To begin with, they do not have the first documents allowing them to enter the United States. I think that we will be in a somewhat similar position next year in Canada with the Olympic Games, in the area of Montreal. We should not be the patsies of some people coming here to have a good time, who like the country so much that they want to stay here for ever. This bill has been before the House for more than a year. First reading was September 10, 1974, second reading May 21, 1975. More often than not, we have to discuss in the House economic and social problems confronting the country, but today on second reading of this citizenship bill may we point out a positive element, the fact that we live in a great country.
If these immigrants who came here anxious to become Canadian citizens were more aware of what is going on here-and this is the key to the problem-I think it would be much easier either to leave them in their homeland or to know exactly who those people are, and finally whom we must receive. When immigrants come to Canada, generally they are very glad to see our large horizons, our incredible natural resources, our great production capacity, a young and dynamic people, a short history but full of courage and determination, and above all peaceful nation. We always were peaceful people, most of us respectful of ourselves and others: that is why these immigrants want to stay here.
But when we travelled through the country, particularly in Montreal, Winnipeg and Edmonton, we met many not so quiet people. They are not willing to discuss at length before getting what they want. They would like to become Canadian citizens on their arrival. They would like to enjoy all the privileges of full citizenship a month or two after landing here. It is unpleasant to sit on a committee to hear witnesses who threaten you With their fists and say: We want this, we want that. Those on the committee are not very impressed and we do not feel like accepting them as citizens.
I met a man in Montreal who has been living here for eight years. He is a student. As I said earlier, he is a perpetual university student. He thought people resented him because he was black. He was completely wrong because he was accepted as a Canadian, five years ago, according to the law. But the moment he got his Canadian citizenship, he began to live on the fringe of the law. He told me: Mr. Beaudoin, I did this, I did that, and after all, I

am a Canadian, they cannot send me back home, I don't care.
I think we should be cautious when it comes to accepting people like that, if we wish to have a responsible country and preserve the outlook that we all cherish.
This is why I believe the suggestion of reducing the waiting period down to three years is a bad one because for three years an applicant can live on the fringe of society, especially if he is working in a municipal department, and no one can find out about him. Whereas if he has to wait five years for citizenship it is easier to catch him for wrongdoing or trace his file and complete his records and therefore know more about his past.
Clause 10 of the act provides that the minister may, if he deems it desirable, grant a citizenship certificate and so forth. The bill under study provides for the minister to grant citizenship and for each case to be referred to the citizenship court.
I think this procedure makes no sense because if citizenship is granted to an immigrant prior to his appearing before the citizenship court and before the court finds something to kick about or decides to deport him he will appeal to another court or say that it is contrary to human rights, and so on.
I think the law is much too lenient under clause 10.
The 21 judges must make decisions but they cannot decide in a definitive way. Speaking of the 21 citizenship judges the Secretary of State stated on December 9, 1974, before the Calgary Canadian Citizenship Council, and I quote:
The twenty-one citizenship judges all across Canada play a key role in this area. They work in large cities and tour the centres around those cities as well as remote areas. The new legislation gives them the legal title of citizenship judge. I am sure you will understand that the response of the government to the needs of potential citizens is determined in a large measure by the attitude of the men and women who are appointed citizenship judges.
Here I would like to say as an aside that the minister did point Out that knowing whether or not an immigrant should be accepted as a Canadian citizen depended on the formation of the judges, men and women, on their personal training. I continue to quote:
In their near judicial role, those citizenship judges make decisions about certain specific points set out in the law. For example, they are the ones who determine if an applicant has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages and if he understands our country well enough to become a Canadian citizen. During the hearings and the ceremonies, citizenship judges act as ambassadors of the Canadian people. They fulfill their traditional task with dignity and enthusiasm and contribute greatly to make the citizenship ceremony a significant symbol of entry into Canadian life. In a larger context, they act as public relations officers and often address schools and clubs to explain the status of Canadian citizens-the rights, privileges and obligations that it entails.
Under Bill C-20, the minister can no longer refuse arbitrarily to grant citizenship, which makes it impossible to use arbitrarily such a power without public or legislative sanction. The governor general however has the power to refuse to grant citizenship, but only if he judges that to do so would be prejudicial to the security of Canada or contrary to public order in Canada.
December 10, 1975

In my opinion, this is very important since the governor in council will never take this position if he does not have obvious proof that the landed immigrant has become a citizen after the three years provided in the act, if he does not have an obvious proof that this immigrant is an undesirable. But who can give this obvious proof of undesirability? Must the applicant commit an offense under the Criminal Code? How far can this go? This is the question that we must ask.
As concerns the province of Quebec, those who appeared before the committee were reasonable people who seemed to assume their responsibilities. They knew what they wanted to say. For instance, they told us, and I quote:
(a) That any province which receives immigrants may play a role in choosing these immigrants if they wish to live within its territory; this means that the federal legislation and regulations concerning immigration must provide mechanisms for the participation of provincial governments in the selection of immigrants.
(1) That the admission to a province of foreign students be submitted to the approval of the government of this province and not only of the institution or school board concerned;
That permanent consultation mechanisms be established with the government of all concerned provinces in relation to expulsion and deportation procedures;
This paragraph will not be applicable, will have no value if an immigrant becomes a citizen after studying three years in any university. This is why I do not agree on that three year waiting period before granting citizenship. Again I quote:
That the province of Quebec be directly involved in the individual recruiting and selection of immigrants, have access to all immigration requests concerning it and that federal immigration officers consider the advice of Quebec's representative before accepting or rejecting any requests concerning the province of Quebec;
I recognize the value of reasonable and orderly immigration, Mr. Speaker. Our country may have much to give to and receive from immigration but here I should like my comments to show that I am very puzzled concerning the * acceptance of some of our immigrants who are today in our country and who should not be here.
There are many immigrants in Canada today and as they have seen here almost five years they will become Canadian citizen but they should never be granted citizenship because they are not ready to become real Canadians. They are not ready to make the necessary sacrifices.
I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that real culture is above race considerations and that the scope of genuine nationalism extends beyond frontiers.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) on a point of order.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) and I did not intend to take part in the debate this afternoon but I am afraid I have to recall some facts that the hon. member for Richmond seems to have overlooked.
The hon. member-
Citizenship


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should understand that if he rises on a point of order, he should do so with regard to the proceedings of the House and not the contents of the statement of the hon. member. He may rise in his turn to oppose the hon. member's statements in whatever way he wishes, but he may not, under the cover of a point of order or of a question of privilege, enter a point of debate with the hon. member on the arguments he put forward. Although he may have the right to rectify inaccurate facts which may have slipped into the hon. member's speech, if he proves that it is a matter of importance, if it is just a matter of opinion, he has no right to take part in the debate at this point.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, this is not an opinion but a fact. The hon. member for Richmond mentioned in his speech that some places in universities of the province of Quebec were occupied by foreign students or students who did not have Canadian citizenship. Well, Mr. Speaker, it so happens that the regulations of the five universities in the province of Quebec, Laval, Sherbrooke, Montreal, McGill and the Quebec university fix a 5 per cent quota on those places available for students, and consequently they are not at all-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is an argument, not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can rise later and express his views at the time.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond on a point of order.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Since there is someone opposite who does not even ask to be recognized to make a speech, and thinks he is good enough to apply censorship to our speeches, I would like him to stand up and deliver a speech if he disagrees with my statements, instead of criticizing.


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Longueil (Mr. Olivier) on a point of order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) just wanted to point to the House that the hon. member opposite said something untrue. That is just what he wanted to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hope hon. members will not request the Chair to bear judgments, for it is too cumbersome a burden. I therefore ask the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), whom I earlier recognized, to proceed with his speech.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this bill which is important in a special sense. It deals with citizenship. We can get an inkling of what citizenship connotes if we examine the derivation of

December 10, 1975
Citizenship
the word. It is derived from a combination of words, the original meaning of which was "denizen of a city." That phrase described those who had the right to rest within a city's walls. They were given certain privileges, benefits, and responsibilities, and had to meet certain standards enabling them to be safely admitted within a city's walls. Obviously, it would not have been wise to allow fifth columnists, saboteurs-


An hon. Member:: Or Liberals.


John Angus MacLean: -or other undesirables into the city. That is the origin of the word. Its meaning in the present day has been widened. A citizen now is a member of a certain geographic area, usually a politically organized area; in other words, as universally recognized, he is now a citizen of a country.
[DOT]
Some will argue that the traditional conceptions of citizenship are no longer valid or relevant and that they should be modified beyond recognition or scrapped altogether. Some even go so far as to argue that the national citizenship requirements of any country are no longer valid.
The extremists say we are world citizens. This is the global village age. They say that people should be free to migrate at will and settle anywhere without hindrance, thereby benefitting from the natural and man made advantages that exist in any particular spot on the face of the globe.
I do not go that far. Perhaps the strongest argument that we are living in a global village is that we have global village idiots who try to suggest that is a viable situation for a country to espouse.
This extreme notion clashes head on with one of the deepest instincts and emotions that is shared by all of God's creatures, including human beings. It is a sense of wanting to belong somewhere, a sense of territorial requirement. It is a sense of having certain rights because you fulfil certain obligations within a given society or area. It is the territorial imperative that biologists speak about.
This sort of motion is perhaps best expressed by the well-known lines of Walter Scott in "The Lay of the Last Minstrel", although I am not sure about that, when he said, "Breathed there the man, with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said, this is my own my native land."
That brings us to this whole question of what is a reasonable attitude with regard to both immigration and emigration, the transfer of peoples from the surroundings, environment and culture from which they sprong. In many cases, their ancestors have lived there for aeons.
It is obvious that people living in any country who have struggled to build up conditions, institutions and a way of life which bears some resemblance to what they would desire, feel that they have a vested interest in what has been achieved. They feel they should have some say in what the rules should be for membership, in this case citizenship in the country. In that situation, any government has a very special obligation to try its best to represent not only its own point of view, but the point of view of

all the citizens of the country who evolve the conditions under which other people may join that country.
There is, of course, the other side of the coin. We cannot be too exclusive. We have to balance our selfish instinct of wanting to preserve what is ours for us, speaking now of the people already here, whether they are citizens or not. We have a moral obligation to all mankind. They have a right to share, to some extent at least, in the very favoured part of the world to which we lay claim and which we own as a country.
We cannot afford to be a complete dog in the manger. On the other hand, we have to be sensible and objective so that in our eagerness to be generous we do not water down the benefit of being a Canadian, or urge people to become Canadians who in the long run may regret the change.
There are many parts of the bill to which one can have no objection. I am pleased to see the amendments that give equality to the sexes, male and female. There is provision for either parent to apply for citizenship on behalf of a minor child. That is long overdue.
Under the new bill, women who did not acquire citizenship under the 1947 act because of marriage to foreign nationals may automatically acquire it upon notifying the minister. That is an obvious improvement.
It is sensible that the age of application for citizenship will be reduced to 18 from 21 years to make it consonant with many of our other laws, including the Elections Act.
Having said that, it would be arrogant for us to assume that the highest ambition of everyone in the world is to become like us and, in order to do that, become a Canadian. That is a superiority complex that we exhibit toward many cultures older and wiser than our own.
An immigrant may have been forced by the direct economic pressures to leave his culture and country to seek a livelihood in another land, in this case Canada. He may not look upon that as an unadulturated benefit. He must have mixed feelings. It must be a wrenching experience for anyone to decide to abandon the land where they were born and grew up, and to give up forever many of the cultural values that they hold so dear.
In many cases people are forced to do this. However, for many, due to conditions in various countries, economic and otherwise, emigration from their native land is their second choice. Therefore in our pell-mell rush to say we are doing would-be immigrants a tremendous favour by making them Canadians, doing it quickly to get it over with, I am not sure we are being entirely fair to the would-be immigrants.
The time when a person may apply for Canadian citizenship implies that around that time he should apply, and if he does not, he is probably under a bit of a cloud. There is some pressure on him to apply for Canadian citizenship. However, in the process of acquiring Canadian citizenship he automatically forfeits his other citizenship, whatever it may have been. His decision at that point has to become irrevocable. This is something we should take into consideration.
The bill proposes to require people with landed immigrant status to have only three years of residence rather
December 10, 1975

than five as is now the case. If I may say so, I think the government has not made a case for the change. I have an open mind. I am willing to be convinced, but I do not think the government has made a case at all. It has just said "Five is an arbitrary figure; let us make it three"-as if the change were of no consequence because the figures are arbitrary. But lots of things are arbitrary. For example, the five years set for the life of a parliament is arbitrary. If we reduce things on the ground that they are arbitrary, maybe we should reduce the life of a parliament from five years to three. It would have the advantage that it would jibe with the argument used in this case, I suppose.
There are a number of things which could be said about this proposal. First of all, I would suppose that any immigrant would want to have enough time in which to make sure that the decision he took to come to Canada was one he wanted to stick with for the rest of his life, and that at no time would he wish to change his mind and exercise again the citizenship he would be forfeiting if he became a Canadian.
Then there are practical things. You know, there is a pet formula which the government and its predecessors seem to use. They take a very subjective view. No matter what is involved they start out by saying it is reform, it is an advance, and it is non-discriminatory. Mr. Speaker, they have used those three terms so often that the value of those words in the language has depreciated. In Canada, "reform" has been debased to mean only the Liberal notion of how things should be done, whether it makes sense or not.
Another word which has been vastly downgraded is the word discrimination. It has been made into a bad word. That has happened because it has been used so often in the sense of discriminating between people so that one of them is treated unfairly-discrimination in matters of taxation, for example. But surely there is nothing wrong about discriminating. I would hate to see the government nationalize the wine industry, for example. If would not wish to discriminate so it would call all wines champagne.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And insist on 80 per cent Canadian content?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Angus MacLean: I make no apology for being able to discriminate between what is suitable and what is unsuitable in a given situation. It is not necessarily virtuous to say that the power of discrimination is being removed from someone. I believe I know what the minister means, but I should like to see the committee approach the bill with an open mind. I believe the committee should arrange for representatives of all points of view to appear before it. Perhaps our first citizens should be there. I am glad the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) has spoken. Except for him I suppose we are all of us immigrants to Canada, or else our parents or grandparents were.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And his were, once.


John Angus MacLean: Well, in prehistoric times, his ancestors, too migrated here. Every point of view has a right to be heard. I believe we should hear from people who have recently become Canadian citizens. They can contribute a
Citizenship
great deal to evaluating the wisdom or lack of wisdom of some of the things we are doing. We should hear briefs from other levels of government which are required to provide various services and amenities, education, among other things, for people who come to this country.
We ought to be able to assess the obligations we place on other levels of government in an objective way. In this connection I understand that in most areas local governments, in order to protect themselves, require children registering in their schools to demonstrate that their parents are in the country legally as landed immigrants or otherwise. We all know that in some of our large cities thousands of people are here illegally. Many of them have children and those children are being denied education because if they went to school the fact that their parents were not here legally would be exposed. So their parents keep them at home. Considerable numbers of children are growing up in our cities who are being denied education because their parents are not landed immigrants and perhaps will never acquire citizenship. These are some of the matters the committee should examine carefully. Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken longer than I had intended, so I will leave it at that.


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-20 I believe I can say without reservation that this long-awaited and long-overdue legislation is most welcome, especially among potential citizens of Canada although it touches every Canadian.
Today being United Nations Human Rights Day commemorating the universal declaration of human rights in the United Nations, I think it is significant we should be discussing new citizenship legislation because it does grant new rights to potential citizens which they were not able to exercise before.
The legislation before us provides for fundamental changes in the granting, retaining, resuming, and renunciation of citizenship. These changes, as well as many others in the bill, are unequivocal and fair. That is why the definition of Canadian citizenship as a qualified right represents an important and progressive step in the history of naturalization and citizenship laws in Canada. The federal government led the way in 1947 with its own citizenship legislation, the first such law to be passed by any Commonwealth country, granting a citizenship separate from that of British subject.
The proposed Citizenship Act of 1975 is a logical, equitable, and up-to-date piece of legislation. The new provisions eliminate discrimination on grounds of sex by according equal treatment to men and women.
The new citizenship act is also more equitable to children. For example, the age of application for citizenship has been reduced from 21 years to 18, the age of majority and the age of voting in this country. Furthermore, the new provisions give rights to children born abroad equal to those of children born in Canada. The proposed legislation also eliminates the present registration requirements, thus making the right to citizenship indefeasible in the first generation born abroad. The bill also passes on the right to

December 10, 1975
Citizenship
citizenship conditionally to the second generation, which is a step in the right direction.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) is to be commended, I believe, for presenting so many just and liberal changes to our citizenship legislation, above all including the one which removes preferential treatment for some applicants. It is most laudable that this new bill is firmly based on the principles of fairness and equal treatment for all.
The new status of citizen of the commonwealth also updates the law and brings us into the real world, acknowledging the special ties that unite Canadians with all members of the British Commonwealth.
Waiting periods for application and for reapplication are being reduced, and this will be welcomed by many people. Although some people regard the reduction in the waiting period while resident in Canada from five to three years as too short for an immigrant to become acquainted with this country, the minister has emphasized the changing attitudes, the different cirucumstances, and the many other opportunities in Canada that enable potential citizens to make up their minds sooner and to commit themselves to Canada much earlier today if they want to do so. Some immigrants are ready for Canadian citizenship before others. If at the end of three years an applicant feels he is capable of satisfying the citizenship judge regarding language, knowledge of Canada, and other requirements under the act, then I do not see why the applicant should not apply for citizenship.
The bill also removes arbitrary discretion and redefines citizenship as a qualified right where certain conditions are met. In trying to correct arbitrary decisions this bill grants discretion to the governor in council to refuse citizenship if it would be prejudicial to the security of Canada or contrary to public order in Canada. I think this should answer many of the objectionable remarks which were made in the House this afternoon during this debate.
The changes in the bill which remove many inconsistencies and barriers should encourage more potential citizens to acquire Canadian citizenship without difficulty, and without having to wait too long.
At this point I should also like to make a few remarks about the citizenship courts and their judges. The new legislation will establish the title of "citizenship judge" for those people who administer the citizenship courts in our land. I am sure all members of the House appreciate the government's reponsiveness to the needs of potential citizens by making citizenship courts more accessible, especially during evening hours and at week ends. This is an outreach program of the Secretary of State that is most commendable, and I wish to thank him for establishing citizenship courts at more than one centre in various cities in Canada. For example, in Toronto and Montreal citizenship offices are open in the evenings, and people are free to ask question about Canadian citizenship and to receive advice and encouragement.
However, the minister should not stop there. Citizenship courts should still be expanded and strengthened by the appointment of more judges. There is a great backlog of cases, especially in Toronto, and I believe that the sooner immigrants get their citizenship papers the happier they

will be, and they will become good useful citizens in their new country.
The privileges of Canadian citizenship are many and worth while, and should make us both proud and grateful. In particular Canada's official policy of multicultaralism, which recognizes the cultural values of all Canadians in a country where no one group is superior to another, makes Canada's citizenship attractive and a most valuable acquisition. This policy and the new citizenship legislation not only helps build a Canadian identity, but also strengthens national unity. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I should like to applaud the enlightened attitude displayed by the Secretary of State in presenting the bill to the House, and I also commend the legislation to all members of the House.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in examining the bill and searching for words to express my reaction to it I am somewhat torn between the positive provisions in the bill and those which I would define as less positive. Let me deal with the positive ones first.
The provisions under Part I, giving the right of citizenship to the children of female Canadians in the same way as it is granted to the children of male Canadians, is essentially identical, at least in purpose, to the provisions in Bill C-275, a private member's bill brought by in by myself this session which followed upon a private member's bill I brought in at each of the previous sessions. In fact I introduced this bill soon after being elected to the House of Commons.
Quite clearly the existing Citizenship Act, which discriminates against the children of Canadian mothers in this way, is unfair and unrealistic in terms of stated government policy and the attitudes and desires of Canadians. As one of my colleagues pointed out during the second reading debate last May, this provision follows on from the recommendation made by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
It was because of this discrimination that I was moved to bring in this private member's bill, but what really triggered it was a situation I became aware of which involved a personal friend of mine, a female Canadian citizen. I think her story is interesting in that it shows the effects that this sort of discrimination can have on Canadians.
Upon graduation from university she sought work with World University Services at the University of Santiago in Chile. While there she met and married a citizen of the Argentine. This citizen of the Argentine left his country- he was also a student at Santiago University-because of political differences with the existing regime. They shortly had a child, and upon the completion of his education they returned to Canada. The child was a citizen of Chile.
After they returned to Canada the Allende government was elected and subsequently deposed, and for a great number of reasons it was not feasible for this family to make use of the facilities available to a Chilean citizen for their son. They could not get a passport. The father was a citizen of Argentina, which also had a change of administration, and he was persona non grata in his own country. Therefore it was not practical for this child to be registered
December 10, 1975

as a citizen of Argentina. His mother was Canadian, they were living in Canada and desired to make their home here, but she could not have her child registered as a Canadian, so the child is essentially stateless.
To complicate the matter further, this couple is now living in Mexico under a two-year program operated through a social agency. This couple is in the peculiar situation of not being certain about the welfare of their son in that he is not a Canadian citizen, although his mother is and his father intends to become a Canadian citizen once he satisfies residency requirements. They are quite concerned in the event that something should happen to them. What would happen to this child? It is their desire that the mother's family should raise the child. The latter are Canadian citizens living in Canada. What happens to a child who is in Mexico with his parents, one of whom is a citizen of Argentina and the other a Canadian? How can that child be taken care of, and what sort of protection would he have from Canadian facilities and services to which he would be entitled if his father had been the Canadian as opposed to his mother?
These circumstances caused me to introduce a private member's bill three years ago to cover the situation, hence I certainly support this part of the bill. There is a difference between my private member's bill and Bill C-20 in respect of this matter of the right to citizenship of a child with a Canadian mother, and that is the matter of retroactivity. The bill I proposed would have given children of Canadian mothers the right to Canadian citizenship, and I am talking about those children who have been born and now exist. Bill C-20 would only give that right to children of Canadian mothers born after enactment.
The minister made some remarks about this bill in that he had some concern that the retroactivity feature if included could lead to some anomaly or difficulty. He gave as an example of his concern a child now 18 or 19 years of age living in his father's home country. As a result of a change in the Canadian law that child might suddenly be declared a Canadian citizen, thereby creating some problem for him.
It is my suggestion that this hypothetical situation could very easily be cleared up. I would suggest, therefore, that the real example I have just given of a child of a Canadian mother, who is now in one sense in jeopardy as a result of not being able to obtain Canadian citizenship, is worthy of more consideration. If you balance the real example against the hypothetical example of the minister, the balance should come down on the side of retroactivity.
The children of Canadian mothers who are now alive should be afforded this advantage as opposed to those who may be conceived and born after this act. These children cannot become Canadian citizens until age 18. With this retroactivity they would become Canadian citizens right now. It would take only a minor amendment to this bill to accomplish this, and it could be accomplished without the risk of the hypothetical example given by the minister. If the minister is paying attention, or will read these remarks later, he will see that this can be done easily by providing that this is done on the application of the Canadian mother. That would quite clearly prevent the hypothetical situation alluded to by the minister.
Citizenship
In terms of this small but important part of Canadian law, one more inequity toward that half of the population which is female is being removed, and that is to be applauded. I dare say that no one on this side of the House would speak against this provision. The only question that is raised is why it has taken so long. One member of the media who became aware of my private member's bill introduced three years ago made the observation that it seemed so self-evident it should have been passed very quickly.
In respect of these features of the law which are clearly discriminatory, and in respect of which public opinion is so clearly defined, there is no reason for such a long delay. There is no reason for the government to wait until it puts all these things together in one omnibus bill. If the government is as concerned as it claims to be from time to time about the lack of productivity on the part of parliament, it should look at this type of situation as one of the root causes. A simple bill like Bill C-275, to remove this discriminatory feature of citizenship, could have passed in about half an hour of the House's time some years ago.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, this bill has good and bad parts. I have spoken about the good parts and I should now like to mention the bad parts very briefly. It is regrettable that the government should resort to these tactics continuously, and I refer to the tendency of the government to put together an omnibus bill covering all possible amendments within a certain area. That sort of procedure is without doubt a major contributor to the slowness and inefficiency with which legislation is dealt with in this Chamber. Instead of blaming the opposition for delaying the passage of legislative measures by foot dragging, the government should look at the manner in which it packages its legislation covering various areas under one legislative blanket for passage through this House.
Perhaps the most serious reservation I have about this bill is the one referred to by my colleagues, and that is the question of reducing the waiting period for Canadian citizenship from five to three years. Canadian citizenship is an honour, and something all of us here feel should be held in the highest esteem. Thus when there is tampering with the mechanisms, the structures, the regulations, and the obstacles that precede the granting of Canadian citizenship, those of us who value it naturally have our antennae stretched out; we are very concerned and interested to learn the rationale and reasoning behind these changes.
Although I did read the remarks of the minister at the second reading stage concerning the reasons for the reduction from five years to three years I did not find any very convincing argument for the change. The thesis the minister proposed is that we live in a modern age with modern communications, and that therefore what took people five years to learn five years ago they can now learn in three years. I suggest that is a very questionable thesis. The evidence in support of that is lacking. The human animal has not changed that much.
I grant that communications and technology have changed and that the world has shrunk in a communications sense, but people have not changed that much.

December 10, 1975
Citizenship
Although I suppose we all take this position too often I believe it is almost arrogant for those of us who are alive today to consider that we are more intelligent, more perceptive, that we learn more quickly than our predecessors, and that therefore now we can learn in three years what it took people five years to learn previously.
I suggest that is a very weak foundation upon which to base a change. It is a change that is very fundamental. We do not automatically hand someone Canadian citizenship papers at the border. The five-year period evolved through much history. There was much experience which caused us to establish the five-year period. It seems to me that we should have very good evidence before we tamper with that history and tradition and bring about a change in something this serious which represents an obstacle to Canadian citizenship. We require much better evidence than has been provided by the minister during his speech at second reading. I have very serious reservations about this. I would find it exceedingly difficult to support the bill on that basis.
I do not intend to go into any great detail in respect of the other features of the bill. One of the pleasant duties I have performed-and I am sure this is the case with other members-is attend citizenship court in my city from time to time. I have found the experience enjoyable, rewarding, and stimulating.
The emotion that is evident on those occasions is certainly infectious. Every time I have attended one of these courts I have come away feeling a little more proud to be a Canadian. I have felt a real sense of warmth toward those persons who participated in the ceremony and who became Canadian citizens on that day. Therefore as a result of those experiences I enjoyed, as a member of parliament I am very reluctant to suggest concurrence in the amendments to these procedures that would tend to take away the dignity from the Canadian citizenship ceremony and procedures. These procedures and traditions are not carved in stone forever. No one suggests that. However, they are traditions. We are the custodians of our history and it seems to me that before we start changing in any great manner these procedures and traditions which have been established, we should have very good cause.
Quite frankly, from listening to the minister and reading the remarks of those who have spoken on second reading in support of this bill, I find I am still unable to reach the conclusion that sufficient evidence has been provided to justify these changes.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, as one member of the committee that toured our country trying to assess the mood of the people with respect to what our citizenship and immigration policy should be I am pleased to add my comments to this debate. The members of the committee found that it was not as easy to make that assessment as some people might have thought when we set out. It is already obvious we will not find it any easier to obtain a consensus on the recommendations set forth in this bill.
It is well known to almost everyone that our committee was hard-pressed at times to conduct our investigations in an orderly and sane manner. We were often subjected to harassment and abuse by special interest groups and by
[Mr. Andre.)
extremists of every possible persuasion. I would hate to think that even a single recommendation we are now being asked to consider was made as a result of this extreme pressure, or to satisfy the demands of a small but vocal minority faction in our country.
I must begin my remarks by saying I cannot accept some of these proposals for changing or upgrading our immigration laws. In some cases I find the recommendations are inconsistent. In others I feel we are placing too low a value on that precious thing we call Canadian citizenship. It has never really been difficult for people who meet the minimum requirements for landed immigrant status in Canada to qualify for and acquire Canadian citizenship. In fact when I set out with the committee to sample public opinion on this subject I did not consider we had a mandate to make it easier for people to come to Canada or acquire Canadian citizenship.
I understand that 750,000 people applied to come to Canada in 1974. What would we do with all these people if we had an open-door policy? In respect of immigration and citizenship, just making it easy is not the same as making it fair. If we are to consider only the aspect of fair and equitable immigration policy, we must first consider what would be fair to the people already in Canada. We are not, after all, thinking or speaking of the Canada of 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago. We are speaking of a Canada that is already threatened by overcrowding, a country that has a high level of unemployment, a country that is already beset with tensions and animosities based on race, colour, creed, language, and a country which has all the problems that exist in countries from which people would like to emigrate.
I cannot agree with the proposal that would lower the requirement for residence in order to acquire Canadian citizenship. Five years is not too long for any person to wait to qualify for citizenship. It is not too long a time for any person to be asked to live in our society and to learn why we are the way we are, and why we place such a high value on our citizenship status.
Switzerland, one of the most democratic countries, requires at least 12 years residence for citizenship. After all, when a landed immigrant is accumulating the required five years of residency, he is free to work and to live as though he were in fact a Canadian citizen, enjoying the same benefits and the same protections under our laws. I do not see any reason to reduce this requirement for residency. It has already been pointed out that while the requirement for five years residency is arbitrary, so is the proposed three year period arbitrary. Why should there not be an arbitrary period of residency just as there are arbitrary requirements with respect to the character of a prospective immigrant?
There are some proposed changes to the act which I can support, but most of these could and should have been made without the effort and expense of sending the Immigration Committee throughout the country.
For instance, the proposal to confer citizenship on a child who was born outside Canada where one or the other of the parents is a Canadian citizen simply recognizes a discrepancy in the immigration laws which should have
December 10, 1975

been corrected long ago, and which would have had the support of all parties if the government had seen fit to propose the change.
I would have liked to have seen a proposal which would give the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) full authority to act in cases where humanitarian considerations are paramount in deportation proceedings. There have been cases where families have been separated to satisfy provisions in the law, where appeal court proceedings were too expensive for a person to undertake, or where the letter of the law took precedence over the humanitarian aspects of the case. There have been other cases, and there are likely to be more, where there was the very real threat of a person being executed for political crimes if he was deported to his country of origin.
Our courts should not be placed in the position of sending a person to his or her certain death to satisfy a provision in our own laws, especially where our laws either do not rec'ognize that a crime has been committed, or where they do not impose such a serious penalty for the alleged offence.
I noted with great interest the statements made on this bill by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and especially where his remarks touched on the question of citizenship as a whole, and what he described as our very generous immigration policy. I must repeat that Canadian citizenship is a precious thing, very much to be desired and protected. It must not be represented as something available to anyone who can get to this country by hook or by crook and manage to remain here for a given number of years. I agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that it does a disservice to people who immigrate legally in the manner prescribed by law when any part of time spent illegally in Canada is allowed to count toward residence requirements for citizenship.
We have had a serious and long standing problem in this country with respect to illegal immigrants, and it has been said in this debate that we do not know today just how many people are living in Canada illegally. However, we do know that they are not abiding by the laws respecting employment, income taxes, and others, because if they were they could all be traced and apprehended.
I know that one of the reasons the government has decided to let these people earn half a day of residence for every day spent illegally in Canada is that they might be encouraged to come out of hiding and apply for landed immigrant status, but I wonder whether this is a good practice and whether it should be continued.
A few years ago the government declared a general amnesty and suspended penalties for all illegal immigrants in Canada who would come forward and apply for landed immigrant status. In actual fact this meant that people who slipped into Canada and should have been deported found it easier to acquire landed immigrant status than those people applying at the border or from their country of origin. It also meant that people who came to Canada on visitors' permits and faded into the underground after their permits expired could come forward and enjoy the full benefits of the immigration laws.
In spite of this very generous gesture on our part, no more than a fraction of the estimated illegals came for-
Citizenship
ward. In spite of the fact that we stretched our immigration laws to the breaking point, it did not solve the problem. We still do not know how many people are living illegally in Canada, and worse still we have no way of knowing what they are doing. I have to say that we have been overly generous to a criminal element in our society, and it is time to take a more objective view of residence in our country.
Some hon. members have touched on the question of immigration policy as a companion policy to that of residence and citizenship, and I believe we have come to a point in the development of our country where we cannot any longer deal with these two problems in isolation. We cannot continue to use the open door as the symbol of immigration policy, and we have an obligation to inform the other peoples of the world that we too are faced with the prospect of over population. In a nutshell, for a number of very practical reasons we should be making it more difficult rather than easier for people to come to Canada and acquire citizenship.
On my recent tour as a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference I found that many of my fellow parliamentarians from other countries were amazed to learn that only a fraction of our three and a half million square miles of land could support habitation and agricultural production. There are still people in the world who believe that we have unlimited living space, and therefore they cannot understand how we could even consider limiting immigration. It is not fair of us to represent Canada as a vast and sparsely populated Utopia where there are unlimited opportunities for employment and the good life.
The plain fact is, as I stated earlier, that we do not provide jobs for a large percentage of our own people, about 800,000, to be reasonably precise, and so ours could hardly be described as the promised land. We have a tremendous obligation to people who live in Canada at the present time, and while I do not suggest that we should close our doors to all immigrants, we should nonetheless take a good hard look at the situation and establish priorities which take into account our own needs, present and future.
Some people might call this a selfish approach to the question of immigration, and I have to agree. If it is selfish to want to save what we have and to want to ensure that we can meet our own needs, wants, and aspirations, then I suggest that we simply steel ourselves to the criticism which might follow.
I mentioned earlier that some of the recommendations made by the Immigration Committee were inconsistent, and I should like to say a few words about that. One recommendation was that we continue to bar prostitutes as prospective immigrants, while at the same time it was suggested that we drop the restriction on allowing homosexuals to immigrate to Canada. I cannot accept that recommendation just because we have accepted the maxim that the government does not have any business in the bedrooms of the nation. It does not necessarily follow that we should not make an effort to raise the moral standards in our society.

December 10, 1975
Citizenship
In the admission of immigrants to Canada we are making a decision before the fact, and it is then, and not later, that we should decide what is and what is not acceptable to us in the way of public morality. I do not want our country to advertise itself throughout the world as a haven for perverts and deviates, and I am afraid that that is just the way it will appear if we drop that restriction.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I agree with the proposal to drop the requirement that candidates for citizenship renounce their former citizenship before accepting their Canadian citizenship. I think that that was an unnecessary and onerous requirement and I cannot help feeling that new Canadians have often felt that they were demeaning their homelands and their former allegiances. It is not necessary to the fulfilment of a new obligation to renounce and demean a former one, and I welcome this change. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that these few flaws that I detect in the bill will be dealt with in committee.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill before we reach the end of the day. While the bill has some good features, most of which are agreeable, there are two serious deficiencies in it.
I should like to speak on the reduction in time for the granting of citizenship being reduced from five years to three. The other point that concerns me is the time spent in this country illegally that would count toward the time required for citizenship. This I suggest, in the modern world in which we live, is a very great mistake on our part. It is obvious that under this law an alien who has been in this country illegally for six years will be automatically granted citizenship after three years, and that is the only requirement to be considered.
Any discussion on the granting of citizenship must take into account the immigration problems that are inherent in this granting of citizenship. We have heard of other countries that have been somewhat more liberal in granting citizenship, but if one examines them nearly all have other restrictions which are more severe.
Canada is one of the last countries in the world that is still allowing an influx of a relatively large number of immigrants from other countries. In the past five years we have taken in around one million immigrants and I think that any policy of citizenship has to be discussed in this light. A million people represent 5 per cent of our population.
Slowly, one by one around the world, bars are going up against immigrants. Even the United States has shown its propensity to shut out immigrants and to keep aliens beyond its borders. Indeed one of its complaints has been that Canadian immigration authorities are so lax and Canadian immigration policy so ineffective that a large number of undesirable people are using Canada as an entry into the United States.
We have just gone through the problem of the wholesale illegal entry of people in the immigration field. During the discussion in this House it was obvious that our immigra-[Mr. Scott.)
tion policy was like Swiss cheese, so full of holes as to be ineffective. The government had to pass legislation that presumably would have some effect on stopping the illegal flow of immigrants.
There is obviously in this country a vast reservoir of people who are here illegally and who will not surface for a long time to come. I believe that this problem will become much more acute as economic slow growth increases and illegal immigrants, in one way or another, will fall into the hands of the authorities to have their cases dealt with by them. If illegal aliens present themselves for citizenship that does not in my opinion-because they have entered illegally and because they have circumvented the normal immigration channels, whether they are desirable or not- entitle them to apply their time in the country as illegal immigrants to their normal citizenship time. By coming to this country illegally they have already jumped the queue. Even if they had been accepted as immigrants they would have left in line those immigrants who look on coming to Canada as a privilege, and who line up at our overseas immigration offices in order to be processed legally and lawfully.
Surely if aliens have come to this country illegally, and certainly in many cases some of these people are active in illegal practices, their time here as an illegal alien should not count. This, I think, is one of the most ridiculous aspects of the bill, that illegal immigrants who have perhaps been indulging in criminal practices will have this time count toward their citizenship.
It has been estimated by officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration that there are upwards of 200,000 illegal aliens in Canada. Even during the recent amnesty only 40,000 came forward. Surely there is something illogical about this bill reducing the time to be spent in Canada from five years to three years, and allowing the time spent here illegally to count as part of that requirement.
Does the government want the bill to pass merely as a political measure to enfranchise new immigrants? We know that immigrants tend to vote for the government in power at their time of entry. Is the government attempting to ensure that these new people will give it some measure of support at the next election?
Furthermore, there is no real way of knowing when an immigrant has come to this country illegally because we have only that person's word for it. If he is here illegally, obviously there is no official time that he arrived on record and there will be no official documentation as to when he came. It is going to be almost impossible to establish with any degree of certainty when the individual came to this country. He is not likely to come forward with that information.
Turning to the second part of the bill on which I wish to speak, that is, the reduction in the time spent by the immigrant in Canada from five to three years, again I must make the strongest representation that this should not occur. If citizenship means anything, surely it has to be earned. True, whether it is five years or three years, it must be arbitrary. I suggest if we are going to have any qualification period at all, if we are not just going to hand citizenship to someone the day he gets off the boat or the
December 10, 1975

plane, whether the qualification period be a week or five years should be considered very carefully.
While the immigrant is here under landed immigrant status he has all the rights and privileges of any other Canadian citizen except the right to vote. In a short five years he assumes the full right of Canadian citizenship and surely it is not too long a time in which to understand the traditions of his new homeland. Indeed for many people the five years give them time to reflect on whether or not they wish to renounce their citizenship of the country from which they came. In fact even if the bill does allow this, and assuming that an American, for instance, loses his citizenship at home, there is still time for him to reflect.
I am struck by the fact that I have talked to a good number of Canadians who have emigrated to the United States for various reasons, such as their professions, work, etc., and who fully expected to remain in the United States for the rest of their lives. But circumstances changed their views. Perhaps the pull of family, of relations, or a change in their professional direction caused them to return to Canada. Sometimes such people did not like the United States, the new country in which they expected to live. A good many were happy that United States citizenship took five years to attain, as during that five years many made up their minds that they did not wish to take out U.S. citizenship. Certainly this is true in Canada.
Many who come to Canada from Europe return to their homelands, where living standards are quite comparable with standards in this country. Some do not like our cold climate, or our distances, and wish to return to their countries of origin. If these people were forced to wait five years for citizenship, they could not be stampeded into the early assumption of a new citizenship which they may well later regret. I suggest that there is merit to conferring citizenship only after five years' domicile, as those who stay for five years will very likely spend the rest of their lives in this country. In any case, in the practical sense the five-year wait would mean that the prospective citizen loses the privilege perhaps of not voting in one federal or one provincial election. The right to vote is the only advantage which citizenship confers as compared with landed immigrant status.
In our experience immigrants have generally come from Europe. Sometimes they brought with them a different language and different customs; yet most had a considerable basic background in the democratic system which western Europe gave the world. For example, most understood what was meant by the institution of the monarchy, or the institution of the head of the republic, which is basically the same thing. Basically, they all had some idea of the democratic institution of parliamentary government. They understood the party system, to some extent at least. They knew that although the parties may be different, parties represent the democratic tradition that the state and the individual are the concern of all parties. In the riding it is my honour to represent, Dauphin, there are Slavic, Ukrainian, and Polish peoples who came to this country before the first world war, at a time when the Czar
Citizenship
ruled Russia. They understood what we mean by democratic government and democratic traditions.
But what about the many immigrants from third world countries whose views on the value of citizenship and the state are entirely different? Often they have no knowledge of the democratic process. Many think that Canada should welcome them, that they should be given free entry and allowed to carry on unimpeded their activities promoting international Marxism and Communism. As the previous speaker said, they look on Canada as a land sparsely populated, which it is if you consider our population density per square mile. In practice our population tends to concentrate in certain well defined areas where the land can sustain them. These third world immigrants are entirely different from the traditional immigrants of western Europe.
I suppose that in time the mix of Canadians will change. Yet I doubt if there is any advantage to encouraging vast numbers of third world people to come to this country- and we will encourage them if we enact "easy" immigration laws, treat illegal immigrants leniently, and confer almost automatic citizenship after three years' domicile.
We cannot ease the burdens of overpopulation of the third world by taking in large numbers of their immigrants. For example, how can Canada, by taking in immigrants, help India, where the populations increases by 12 million every year? There are many other similar countries where the population is dense and rapidly rising. True, their population is not as large as India's, but they suffer from overpopulation nonetheless. For example, consider countries in the Caribbean.
At the moment the standard of living in Canada is high; yet owing to the rapidly rising cost of energy, and because we as a country consume so much energy, we can expect a prolonged period of slow growth. Bringing large numbers of immigrants to Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and other Canadian cities makes no sense, particularly as they will only increase the pressure on supplies of already scarce resources and housing.
As I said previously, Mr. Speaker, the advantage of a citizen is that he has the right to vote. That advantage is denied the landed immigrant. The three-year rule has this severe shortcoming: it could happen that an individual would be called upon to cast his ballot before observing adequately the workings of the electoral system. For many immigrants their first election is their first chance to observe the workings of the democratic process. On the other hand if we retain the five-year rule it would mean that immigrants coming from the United States, Britain, western European countries, and other countries where the electoral system is highly developed would sit out only one election.
Indeed, almost every citizen of this country misses the right to exercise his franchise at least once in a lifetime owing to the calls of work, ill health, or to being away on election day. Surely delaying citizenship for five years would impose no great hardship on the immigrant. In any event the immigrant is better able to observe the workings of our political system in a five-year period and thus can better appreciate the privilege of citizenship.

December 10, 1975
Citizenship
Although there are one or two good provisions in this bill, the two shortcomings to which I alluded make the bill unacceptable to me. For that reason I suggest we should not adopt it in its present form. Others have mentioned humane application of our immigration laws. Parts of this bill will, it is hoped, make the application of our immigration laws easier and more humane. May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 11, 1975