1975-05-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning Air Canada. Since this is the 29th day with no service from our national airline between Montreal and Paris, two of the most important cities in the world, because of the continuing strike in Paris of Air Canada's employees there, and since very soon, I believe this Sunday, Air Canada's Econair charter 747 service is supposed to leave Montreal for Paris, which will be highly unlikely under present circumstances, and since the passengers on this charter, because of special arrangements, will have great difficulty in having their fares refunded in full, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the Minister of Transport intervene directly to expedite an immediate satisfactory settlement thereby permitting this important air service to be resumed and creating more satisfactory labour-management relations in Air Canada, something which as the minister knows is sadly lacking at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Canada is about to embark on negotiations at ICNAF to reduce foreign fishing pressure off the east coast, and in view of the fact that the draft treaty developed at the Law of the Sea Conference provides for a 200-mile zone and United States legislation will shortly pass having a similar effect, and in view of the depressed state of Canada's fishing industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That this House now go on record as favouring an immediate unilateral declaration confirming Canada's right to a 200-mile economic zone or to the continental shelf, whichever is the greater.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 this motion cannot be proceeded with without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the great number of students who will be unemployed this coming summer, and that the Opportunities for Youth Program has been drastically curtailed this year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House consider immediately the problem affecting students and due to a lack of vision on the part of this government which did not see fit to provide for a larger budget which would be more in keeping with the needs of young people who ask for nothing more than to work and make themselves useful, while earning an income, a possibility through the Opportunities for Youth Programs which is offered to them. That the House should also consider the advisability of maintaining through additional grant projects apt to meet permanent social needs submitted within the framework of this program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.
29561 - 33'/2

May 21, 1975
LIP Projects
[English]	ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the apparent discrepancy between the recollections of the President of CIDA and the draft of the minutes of the President's Committee meeting of December 2 to 5, 1974, in respect of the total package of CIDA loans and grants to Cuba, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the Auditor General be instructed to examine the pertinent witnesses and documents and report the facts as determined by him to the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important and urgent matter.
In view of the fact that although spring is here, unemployment is still rising and that the Canadian Parliament has the duty to foster the implementation of employment generating programs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House asks the Treasury Board to make additional funds of several million dollars available to the Department of Manpower and Immigration, so that the minister be allowed to authorize the extension of LIP projects and also finance others that are submitted.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity; the motion cannot be put.
[Mr. Speaker.)


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ASSURE MEAT SOLD IN QUEBEC IS FIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the Food and Drugs Act makes it unlawful for any person to sell an article of food that is unfit for human consumption, I should like to ask the minister whether he has satisfied himself that the meat which has been sold in the province of Quebec has been subjected to adequate inspection by some authority either provincial or federal to ensure that it has been fit for human consumption.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to note that, to our knowledge at the present time, there has been no case in which meat from federally inspected plants has been found unfit for human consumption. All the cases up to this time that have been found have been related to plants inspected under provincial authority.
So far as the application of the Food and Drugs Act is concerned, our intention is to let the present inquiry proceed before the commission on organized crime in Quebec so that we may have advice concerning the necessary steps to be taken with regard to prosecution under the Food and Drugs Act. I should like to assure the House and the Leader of the Opposition that all the necessary prosecutions will be instituted as soon as the evidence has become available. To institute proceedings at this particular time might impair the inquiry that is proceeding at the present time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking the minister about the institution of proceedings. I am asking him whether he has done anything to discharge his responsibility to see that meat being sold in the province of Quebec, whether provincially or federally, is fit for human consumption. I am sure the minister will agree with me that he does not answer that question when he says that all federally inspected meat so far has been found to be fit for human consumption. What has he done to discharge his responsibility under that section of the Food and Drugs Act?


Marc Lalonde: The Leader of the Opposition will be happy to note that the present inquiry has been initiated following the investigations made by inspectors from my department.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare would like to know I would be very much happier if he could tell me what, if anything, he has done to ensure that meat has been inspected and, perhaps more specifically, whether he has any brief comment to make on the fact that it is alleged that some 380 packing or slaughterhouses in the province of Quebec have not been subjected to any inspection at all. What has he to say about that?
May 21, 1975


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I can speak only for the plants being inspected under federal jurisdiction; all meat processed in those plants under federal jurisdiction has been properly inspected by federal officials. I am afraid that is the only answer I can give the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: One final supplementary by the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the minister suggesting that section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act which prohibits the sale of meat unfit for human consumption and section 22 which authorizes inspection by the minister's officials of any abattoir or any place where food is stored, are ultra vires?


Marc Lalonde: The Leader of the Opposition is obviously asking me for a legal opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REASON FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE QUEBEC MERCHANTS SELLING MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of what the minister said, and in view of the fact that federal inspectors have discovered that a second packing house is involved in the Quebec tainted meat scandal besides Federal Packing Incorporated of Magog, Quebec, can the minister say why no charges have been laid despite the fact that 700 pounds of tainted meat have been seized from this plant by inspectors?


Marc Lalonde: For a very simple reason, Mr. Speaker: a full investigation must have been carried out before legal proceedings can be instituted under the Criminal Code or the Food Act.


PROPOSED COMPULSORY FEDERAL INSPECTION OF MEAT
Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that evidently there is no compulsory provincial meat inspection carried out by the province of Quebec and that as of 1973, 380 abattoirs in that province had no government inspection of any kind, thus exposing the public to the ravages of disease and infection from consumption of diseased and tainted meat, will the Prime Minister now give serious consideration and undertake the necessary steps to make meat inspection compulsory throughout Canada and under the direct supervision of the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture? As a former employee, I have the highest regard for them and am sure they will do the job correctly without any problems whatsoever.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will take that as a representation and will look at it.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF CIRCULARS CONTAINING GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNTIL NATIVE LEADERS CONSULTED
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning the recently implemented policy guideline circulars in Saskatchewan. In view of the fact that the concept of these circulars has been rejected by all elected Indian leaders, and in view of the fact that these circulars are in effect continuing the policy outlined in the 1969 white paper which was rejected by the government, is the minister prepared to rescind the use of these circulars until there has been some meaningful consultation and involvement with Indian leaders?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday in reply to another hon. member, there has been consultation on this matter. We feel that the guidelines respond in many ways to the requests of the native people who said they wanted to know what the rules were under which they have to deal with the program funding coming from this department. This is a specific request that has come to us from many bands, not provincial associations but bands across the country, and one to which we have endeavoured to respond. I have indicated that the guidelines have been regarded as being of an interim nature, and we will be prepared to re-examine them before the end of this fiscal year.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, the minister said last year that he would only deal with elected representatives of the Indian people. Why is he now creating another bureaucratic level of the district and local governments which will compete with the elected Indian leaders?


J. Judd Buchanan: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do not understand the intent of that statement. This is to be dealt with by the chiefs and the bands; and they are the ones who have the responsibility.


REFUSAL OF SASKATCHEWAN CHIEFS TO WORK WITH REGIONAL DIRECTOR JIM WRIGHT-REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT
Walter (Wally) Firth: In view of the fact that 69 out of 69 Indian chiefs in Saskatchewan have indicated they are unwilling to work with the department's acting regional director, Jim Wright, would the minister consider replacing him with some one more acceptable to the Indian leaders in Saskatchewan?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wright, as was indicated by the hon. member, is on an acting basis. We made it clear that when a permanent appointment is made, which we expect to be this summer, the Indian people will sit on the selection board, as is the normal practice.

May 21, 1975
Oral Questions


SUGGESTED UNIFORMITY OF MEAT INSPECTION STAMPS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question which is complementary to those asked by the Leader of the Opposition.
Has the minister had any meeting with his provincial counterparts or does he intend to have any in order to assure that the standards indicated by the stamps "Canada approved" or "Quebec approved" or "Ontario approved" be the same as regards the quality of meat sold for human consumption?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, standards and norms have been well recognized as far as Canada is concerned. As for the stamps affixed by the provinces, they are supposed to conform roughly to Canadian standards. The problem presently occurring in Quebec seems obviously related to the enforcement of the provincial regulations which does not seem to have been adequate.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. The minister just said that these standards are similar. Could he advise the House whether he will advocate, with his provincial counterparts, the same standards relating to the hygiene of slaughterhouses, to the transportation of livestock to slaughterhouses, in order that the standards be the same for federal and provincial governments?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am not ready to give the hon. member that assurance as regards the details of the regulations in the various provinces, which are different from the regulations enforced at the federal level. But nevertheless I want to point out to him that the present problem is not related to the regulations per se but to their enforcement which does not seem to have been adequate. As for the basic problem raised by the hon. member, it is of public interest and I will examine it more thoroughly.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE QUEBEC MERCHANTS SELLING MEAT UNFIT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. In his reply to the Leader of the Opposition the minister stated that the inquiry which has been launched by the government of Quebec was as a result of inspection carried out by his department under the Food and Drugs Act. If that is the case, perhaps the minister will explain to the House why he did not discharge his responsibility under the act and lay prosecutions under section 4 of the act.


Marc Lalonde: As usual, the hon. member is apparently giving my reply a somewhat larger interpretation than what I

actually said. I said that the investigation had been initiated following inquiries made by my departmental inspectors. From the very beginning of the investigation, however, it was ascertained that this was the sort of work which could be more properly carried out by police forces than by departmental officials, so that, right from the start, the proper police forces were invited to take charge of and carry out the investigation; and now their findings are about to be made public. The necessary legal proceedings will be instituted after all the necessary evidence has been gathered by this investigation.


REASON DISEASED MEAT SOLD IN QUEBEC IN LIGHT OF INCREASED NUMBER OF INSPECTORS
James Aloysius McGrath: In June of last year the Food Prices Review Board recommended additional inspection of meat in Canada to ensure that diseased and inferior meat is not being sold to the public, and again on October 25 of last year the minister in a statement in the House said that 30 additional technical and professional staff in the field will work exclusively on meat sampling across the country. If that has been done- and I assume these inspectors are still active-would the minister explain to the House how it is that 700,000 pounds of diseased meat can be sold to the public in the province of Quebec?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously the excellent work that is being done by the inspectors has unveiled some quite inappropriate practices which come, I repeat, under the jurisdiction of the province concerned.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is no consolation to the people who ate that meat.


GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO SETTING BACTERIA LEVELS IN MEAT
Mr. Paul Yewchuh (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well. In view of the fact that there have been some discussions with the provinces concerning the setting up of national standards for acceptable bacterial levels in meat, can the minister indicate whether it is still the intention of the federal government to set national standards for acceptable levels of bacteria in meat or whether the federal government is backing away from this concept?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of the question is no.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but my question was not one that could be answered yes or no. I asked the minister whether the government was backing away from
May 21, 1975

the concept of setting up national levels. I should like him to answer that question. Secondly, I wonder whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington.


Marc Lalonde: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF FAIR TREATMENT FOR PERSON WHOSE LAND PURCHASED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from complaints I have received from land owners along the right of way of the proposed Sarnia-Montreal pipeline regarding the arrogant and deceitful treatment and attitudes of the agents purchasing the right-of-way. My question will have to be directed to the Prime Minister because of the temporary absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May I ask the right hon. gentleman, now that cabinet has approved the building of the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline, will it also assure the landowners, residents and farmers whose land the pipeline traverses that fair and honest treatment will be given them by the agencies purchasing the right-of-way for the project?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources ):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is adequate provision in the report of the National Energy Board to cover that situation.
*
* *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister caused an investigation to be launched into allegations on the CTV news last evening that one Emilio Garza, a CIA agent, had infiltrated the Coady Institute at the minister's own university, thereby seriously compromising Canada's international aid posture? Will the minister inquire whether CIDA checked Mr. Garza's background before he was allowed to proceed to the Coady Institute?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have made inquiries, Mr. Speaker, but I have not received all the information I need in order to answer the question fully. The person in question was an instructor at the Coady Institute, employed by the institute itself as I understand it, and was also for a short period a member of a consulting team that went to Peru to examine the fisheries situation there. That CIDA contract lasted for 16 days I think and this person's attachment to CIDA was solely of that duration. With respect to the
Oral Questions
other part of the question, I have not yet received the information but I am seeking it.


POSSIBILITY OF A TREATY PROHIBITING OPERATION OF FOREIGN AGENTS IN CANADA WITHOUT PERMISSION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I would be allowed a supplementary question-final or whatever other adjective is used. Final sounds so final. Has Canada a treaty with other countries, including the United States, prohibiting such activity without specific permission of the host country, and if we have a treaty was permission requested from the government of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, these are the points I am inquiring about. Obviously, there is an understanding, as I think I have stated earlier in the House with the authorities of the United States, that no such activities should take place in Canada without the express knowledge and permission of the Canadian government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Athabasca seek to raise the question of privilege now?


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I can raise it now or whenever you like. I can do it now or at three o'clock, but I want to point out that at three o'clock the minister concerned may be gone.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was seeking to ask a question of the minister. He asked whether the government had backed away from some sort of agreement with the provinces. The minister answered with a negative and the hon. member then said that the question could not be answered with a yes or no. It obviously could have been and was. Under the circumstances, I thought I had to go on to someone else. If the hon. member has further comments I think he should make them at three o'clock.


ALLEGATION MR. VIRGINIA GONZALES OPERATED AS CIA AGENT IN CANADA-REQUEST THAT HE TESTIFY BEFORE COMMITTEE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to a sworn affidavit by a Mr. Virginia Gonzales who states that he was a CIA agent and operated quite freely in Canada and that he had something to do with harassing a Mr. John Meyers of Vancouver. As this is contained in a sworn affidavit and as the Solicitor General stated to me in a letter that the government has no record of the man operating in Canada, will the minister be prepared to grant Gonzales immunity from prosecution in order that he can come to Canada and testify before a Commons committee, then perhaps we could find out how many CIA agents are operating in Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware of this affidavit signed by Mr. Gonzales? If so, has the government protested to the United States the fact that Mr. Gonzales, according to a letter sent to me by the Solicitor General, is operating in Canada and wiretapping Canadian telephones without RCMP permission?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not up to date on this case. I will check with my colleague, the Solicitor General about it and, if required, give my hon. friend further information.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of proposals made to the Quebec government for settling the Pratt and Whitney strike, which includes the provision that 1,000 of the striking workers should be rehired and the acceptance of those proposals by the Quebec government, will the federal government consider the possibility, if the company refuses to accept those proposals, of nationalizing the plant or turning over the work to another Canadian aircraft company?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question, in this form, is plainly hypothetical and relates to a matter under provincial jurisdiction.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the strike has now gone on for so long and created so many problems, and as the company has refused to follow the practice of virtually every other company in Canada in dealing with its employees in accordance with the Rand formula for union security, I suggest that it is not at all unlikely that this company will do just what I suggested. I ask the Prime Minister, as I asked him several months ago when I got an affirmative reply, if the government would at least consider the possibility of nationalizing that company?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the question, you will see that the hon. member says, if the company does not do certain things, will the federal government do certain other things? This is plainly hypothetical.


POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN MEAT INSPECTION REGULATIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am returning to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I have been a great admirer of his knowledge of dietetics ever since he advised the House last fall that hamburger filled with manure is not detrimental to health, so long as it is properly cooked. That scared people all over the country. I wonder what change in the regulations has been made, because while manges de la merde-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I see nothing shameful in quoting the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was misquoted.


John George Diefenbaker: I was wondering whether there had been any change in the regulations, because the minister suggested that anybody who "manges la merde" has nothing to worry about, provided it is properly cooked. Has there been any change in the regulations since that tremendous announcement by the minister?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Keep it clean, George. Let's not have any dirty questions.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Between his search for consensus and a contractual link and when he goes to Europe to attend the NATO conference next week, does the Prime Minister intend to visit our forces at Lahr and inspect first-hand the obsolete equipment with which our greatly reduced force is compelled to try to carry out its contractual obligations under the NATO Alliance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I inform the hon. member that I have visited Lahr several times, which is probably more than he can
say.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have been to Lahr four times.


Mr. Baldwin:: And he does not have available the Jet-star, either.
May 21, 1975


George Harris Hees: And I went there on government business to inspect the forces as the opposition critic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Quiet, you rabble.
My supplementary question is this, Mr. Speaker. As Canada is openly and strongly criticized by our NATO allies for trying to "do NATO on the cheap" and sending a man into battle-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What battle?


George Harris Hees: -in one of our obsolete tanks against the vastly superior equipment which the other side possesses, and as this comes pretty close to a sentence of death, I ask the Prime Minister if he intends, when he meets with his colleagues at the NATO conference, to advise them that at long last Canada intends to bring our equipment up to NATO standard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do take note of the very serious question and I take it as a representation that the government should increase considerably its defence expenditure. I will bring that to the cabinet's attention, as a recommendation from the opposition side.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the government to carry out its responsibilities, responsibilities on which it started cutting back seven years ago when the Prime Minister took over.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is my point. We did try to show some restraint in the size-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: What about your office? What about the tremendous expansion of expenditure in every other line of government business? The government's motto is: to hell with the armed forces, spend on everything else.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of State who is responsible for fisheries, of which I gave him notice. In view of the imminent closure of a number of wooden shipbuilding yards in Nova Scotia, especially along the south shore, has the minister and the government reached a decision on the question of providing immediate financial assistance to the industry in the form of shipbuilding subsidies, in order to provide employment for the shipbuilders and replace draggers and longliners for the fishermen?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I had indicated to the hon. member that an answer would be forthcoming by the middle of May. Criteria were suggested to me last week; I did not feel they were responsive enough to meet local needs. I asked that they be looked at again. I am attending
Oral Questions
a meeting this afternoon and I hope to be in a position to have more to say about the matter this week.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It follows the question I asked a few weeks ago. I realize the minister did not intend to mislead the House when answering. I feel that he was uninformed at the time. It also follows after a survey of groceries and supermarkets in the north Okanagan, undertaken last Friday, which indicated that no widemouth Mason jar lids are available there. Has the minister received any indication from his observers in B.C. or elsewhere as to when these important supplies can be expected.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied in writing to the hon. member on this. I may remind him that one of the first reasons for such a shortage was a strike in a company manufacturing such products in British Columbia. I have therefore written to my provincial counterpart, the Minister of Consumer Affairs in that province, in order to draw her attention to this matter. I have also written to the Minister of Labour of British Columbia in order to ask him to hasten the settlement of the dispute.


PROPOSED EXPANSION OF ELDORADO NUCLEAR PLANT AT PORT HOPE-REQUEST FOR OUTLINE OF DETAILS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northurr berland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to give the details today of previously announced expansion plans for the Eldorado nuclear plant in Port Hope? If not, as I understand he is to visit Port Hope on Friday, will he consider the matter then?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the last details on this matter. I will take note of the question.


HOCKEY-DIFFICULTY OF AMATEUR ASSOCIATION IN COLLECTING DUES FROM PROFESSIONAL TEAMS- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is a well known fact that the minister has shown great interest-
5964

Oral Questions


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Question.


Otto John Jelinek: You would not understand it if you heard it. Why do you not listen? It is a well known fact that the minister has shown great interest in catering to professional athletes in the past. Keeping that in mind, can the minister advise this House what steps, if any, he intends to take with regard to the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association problems in collecting their dues from professional teams for their right to draft amateur players? Also, does the minister intend as well to take steps to bring both the NHL and the World Hockey Association to the bargaining table for the purpose of negotiating a new Pro-Am agreement?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association has already instituted proceedings in order that its rights, under a former contract, be respected.
With regard to the signing of a new agreement, I have already met the leagues concerned once, and the interested parties gave me their verbal assurance that a contract would be signed. Now, it is particularly difficult to take part in negotiations when one is dealing with individuals who do not seem to live up to their word. I shall see what can be done. I have received a letter from the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and will see if there is a possibility of resuming negotiations. But, once again, I must point out to the hon. member that, when one cannot rely on the promises made, it is quite difficult to conclude agreements.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would like to get back to the question of circulars, directives, guidelines and so on which will affect our native people. In light of the fact the minister said extensive consultation has taken place with our native people and the president of the Union of Nova Scotia Indians, Mr. Alexander Denny, speaking on behalf of the band councils, native people and chiefs in the province of Nova Scotia stated that no consultation has taken place, will the minister be good enough to arrange this consultation to which he refers as soon as possible?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, we feel that consultation has in fact taken place. As I indicated earlier, we are prepared to regard the guidelines currently in force as being interim in nature. With regard to the ones that have not yet been proclaimed, we have set a time frame for input by the native people. The government discussed the

guidelines with the National Brotherhood over a period of 18 months. As well there were two national conferences for the Indians which were sponsored by the Department of Indian Affairs. There has, in fact, been consultation.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, the native people of Nova Scotia have always been most co-operative in dealing with the minister and his department. In light of the fact they feel the minister has quite a bit of merit in his guidelines and so on, will he arrange as soon as possible to have senior people from his department meet with the president and the band chiefs of that province?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to do that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is with regard to the report that some 20,000 tons of uranium oxide is to be exported to such countries as Italy, Britain, Spain, West Germany and Finland, subject to their signing a bilateral nuclear safeguard arrangement. I want to inquire of the minister whether any of those countries have yet signed this agreement. Also, would the minister be prepared to table a copy of that agreement so that members may have an opportunity to examine the nature of the safeguards which are being imposed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, to my recollection, no such agreement has been signed. However, I will check into the matter. I will also consider the possibility of tabling such agreements.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On
December 20 last, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that negotiations were going on for the export of CANDU reactors to Argentina, Iran, South Korea, Denmark, Rumania, Great Britain and Italy. Will the export of any of these CANDU reactors be contingent on signing this new bilateral safeguard agreement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the sale of any of these particular reactors will be dependent upon the negotiations and acceptance of satisfactory bilateral safeguards. These safeguard provisions will be put together in the form of bilateral agreements.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works that from now on, all uranium, atomic technology and nuclear reactors would require the signing of the nuclear agreement to which I have referred, I wish to ask the minister if that is the situation and there will be no exports of uranium oxide, CANDU reactors or atomic technology unless the country concerned has signed the agreement which the minister's
May 21, 1975

department is now drafting? Is that clear? Are there to be any loopholes? If there are to be any loopholes, what are they?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be any loopholes. The safeguards that were announced by my colleague in December will be implemented with respect to all these bilateral arrangements with other countries. The only point that I would like to check further is the form of these agreements. My understanding is that agreements will be required in each particular case.


REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO ATHLETES PREPARING FOR OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he indicating a personal interest and is his department working on investigating on behalf of our athletes who might participate in the Olympics? These athletes may find themselves deferring education. The athletes may have financial and personal difficulties. Can they count on this government to give them special assistance as they prepare and work for the Olympics and will this be followed up after the Olympics?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, following a meeting with a certain number of athletes, I asked my department to make a careful investigation of all individual cases. That investigation is practically concluded. I am meeting with my officials this very afternoon on this subject and expect certain recommendations to be put to me. I hope I will be able to come to the help of those who are really in need.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the fact that the population of Chibougamau-Chapais, now numbering 21,000 people, must travel over 200 miles in order to get to the nearest unemployment insurance office, in Alma, could the Minister tell us if steps will soon be taken for the establishment of a local office or of an information centre either in Chapais or in Chibougamau?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will note the hon. member's concern and look into the matter to see what can be done.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In the minister's capacity as being responsible for the CBC, did he communicate to the proper executives of the CBC the concern of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Canadian Medical Association and the National Cancer Institute about the re-showing of the program which indicated that the drug laetrile may be a helpful cure for cancer?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, representations that I received from a variety of sources about that particular program were transmitted to the corporation. I also believe it is correct to say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare spoke directly to the president of the corporation.


James McPhail Gillies: Can the Secretary of State advise the House the possible reason the executive of the CBC gave for showing the program in spite of all the indications from authorities that this program could do immense damage to people who may be suffering from cancer?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, It is not a new doctrine that the corporation is entirely responsible for decisions of programming. That is a principle that has been respected on both sides of the House ever since the corporation was set up. On its behalf, I should like to table a statement covering the reasons for showing the program the second time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the provincial hog marketing agencies of the three prairie provinces have asked the minister, through telegrams, letters and phone calls for some time now, for a rehearing at which they would like to discuss the importation of hogs into Canada, as well as the difficulty that they are experiencing in obtaining export permits from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, would the minister indicate whether he is planning to meet with representatives of these agencies, and will he be able to give them an indication of the government's position on the two issues I have mentioned?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I know some representations have been made. The deputy minister of agriculture recently made a tour of the western provinces and met with the deputy ministers of the provinces. I was in touch with him just before coming into the House today. I point out that we have not filled our quotas for the export of hogs to the United States at the present time. Indeed, there is a shortage of
29 561 - 34(2

May 21, 1975
Oral Questions
high quality pork products in Canada at the present time. I believe the price in Toronto yesterday was $64 a hundredweight.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the question that I asked the minister, would he indicate whether he will meet with the representatives who have asked to meet him to discuss the difficulties that these agencies are experiencing?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE HERITAGE OF CANADA REASON FOR PAYMENT TO SOCIETY TO COMPENSATE FOR USE OF NAME &quot;HERITAGE CANADA&quot;
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Would the minister inform the House why his department found it necessary to pay approximately $80,000 to the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada so that his department could use the name "Heritage Canada", in view of the fact that his department awarded over half a million dollars in grants to this society, which surely should have been adequate recompense for the name?


James Hugh Faulkner: I will have to look into that question, Mr. Speaker.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that this is International Women's Year and the minister has recently told the entire nation that the House now has before it a bill to provide equality of status for male and female persons, would the minister now tell the House when we will be able to debate this measure and perhaps institute it into law?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would have to refer that question to my colleague the House leader. I have been urging him to bring the legislation forward for second reading as soon as possible, and the President of the Privy Council said that he had this in mind, provided he could get agreement from the other House leaders. I will leave the matter to the House leader.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the House leader? Not only is this part of the session drawing to a close, but International Women's Year is half over. This legislation has been on the order paper since October 8, 1974, so when does the minister plan on bringing it forward for second reading so we can get with it?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, we have had some difficulty in getting through our legislative program because the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: -has insisted on debating some issues at what I think has been an inordinate length. However, I am doing my very best, and with the co-operation of the hon. member's friends on the other side of the House we could bring the measure forward and deal with it quickly, I am sure. I just urge him to get his colleagues to co-operate in other respects.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. It deals with the possible takeover by Hilton of certain CN hotels. In view of the Minister's statement in the House on February 12, 1975, as reported at page 3154 of Hansard, that "There is no doubt in my mind that CN cannot make a deal with the hotels without the approbation of the Government of Canada", would the minister advise the House whether he is aware that the CBC, which leases space in the Chateau Laurier, has just concluded lease arrangements for future occupation in the Chateau Laurier, and that these negotiations were carried out between the CBC and Hilton, not the CBC and the Chateau?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. These are normal negotiations that are taking place in all cases where Hilton has the responsibility of administering the hotel. I do not think the Chateau Laurier is one of Hilton's.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Hilton Hotels is not responsible for the management of the Chateau Laurier, would the minister investigate the situation and report to the House?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot investigate all of the hotels, but if it is of interest to the hon. member I will do it with pleasure.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Has he the complete agreement of the Minister of Justice regarding the new national transportation policy that he is going to bring down, and is the sanctity of the Crowsnest pass rates protected in that new transportation policy?
May 21, 1975


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think we are still having some discussions regarding the general policy and the Minister of Justice has written me a letter commenting on the document. I will see what the cabinet is going to decide about that. As far as the Crowsnest pass rates are concerned, I have said, so many times in this House, what I think about them that I do not think I have to repeat myself.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I assume from the minister's remarks-I have always had confidence in his view of the Crownest pass rates-that he is still fighting with the Minister of Justice, and that the Minister of Justice still wants to destroy those rates?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister of Justice wants to destroy anything. I think he is trying to protect the western farmers and I support him in his efforts.


MANPOWER
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of charges of patronage in connection with the awarding of OFY grants levelled by a Vancouver alderman last week, and an admission by the program co-ordinator in Vancouver that they try to keep patronage to 12 per cent in British Columbia and to 25 per cent in Quebec, and in view of the fact that delay in cabinet approval of the program results in hasty decisions on applications and the awarding of funds only to people with the ability to find their way through the process, would the minister call for an immediate investigation into the OFY mess?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not know one comment that the hon. member made in his preamble to the question that has any validity whatsoever, and I see no reason for an investigation on that basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief question of privilege. With the greatest respect to Your Honour, I think that when a member is recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary question, he should be given the courtesy of completing his question before another member is called upon.


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect to the hon. member, his difficulty arose from the fact that he was attempting to say that the answer that had been given by the minister was not an answer. It was, therefore, difficult to recognize him to continue with a supplementary in those circumstances. I think that the hon. member is the author of his own misfortune.
Privilege-Mr. Kaplan




Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice. Yesterday in Hansard, as reported at page 5915, column two, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) accused me of obstructing the work of the House finance committee, which I chair. He said:
This obstruction was carried out on Thursday, May 15, by the newly elected chairman, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-
The issue before me, Mr. Speaker, was whether there was a quorum to vote an estimate. I followed the Standing Order, pursuant to which there was no quorum present, and held that I could not put the question. This is the conduct which the hon. member characterizes as obstruction. The hon. member has accused me in committee of being biased, high-handed, autocratic and of twisting the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I reject all these descriptions as unjustified and totally misrepresentative of my conduct, and offensive to me as a member of parliament. The quorum rule of our committee is clear, and it is in writing and I applied it. Anyone is entitled to disagree with the ruling of the Chair, but accusations of obstruction put my chairmanship in question, especially on my first day on the job. I would accept the apology in the House of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If you find this is a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin):
That the question of my chairmanship ruling as to a quorum in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, as referred to by the hon. member for York-Simcoe in Hansard on May 20, 1975, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know whether there are other members who want to contribute to this very interesting question of privilege, but I would propose to re-examine the words of the hon. member and the comments of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who allegedly made the remarks initially, and give the matter some consideration before making a ruling.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to rise on a point of order at this time, but I was not at all clear, from the answer given me at the close of the question period by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), whether he is in disagreement with a statement made by his officials in Vancouver concerning the OFY program. I understood him to say that he was not sure about the validity of my comments. Let me point out that I was merely asking the minister to conduct an

May 21, 1975

investigation in order to find out if there is validity in them, and if they are valid then there is truly a mess.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not do this in a frivolous way, but I wonder whether Your Honour could investigate to see if there is a plot afoot by the government House leader to literally smoke us out by turning off the air-conditioning.


SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF THE HERITAGE OF CANADA TABLING OF STUDY OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND SOCIETY
James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table some documents which constitute a study of the relationship between the Department of the Secretary of State and the Society for the Study of the Heritage of Canada.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to make a statement with regard to the SIU. With the indulgence of the House, I will try to be as brief as possible but the House will recognize that this has been an important area of discussion for some months.
I would like to advise the House that I have ordered a further investigation of the Seafarers' International Union under powers conferred on me in section 196 of part V of the Canada Labour Code. This further investigation results from new material which was turned over to me by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on April 29.
It is important that this investigation be viewed in its proper perspective. This requires a full knowledge of the sequence of events that transpired at both the Ontario provincial and federal levels since April, 1974, when the Metropolitan Toronto Police and the Ontario Provincial Police launched an investigation into allegations affecting the Seafarers' International Union.
The investigation in Ontario last year continued for eight months without publicity. Then, on November 19, in the Ontario legislature, the MPP for High Park, Dr. Morton Shulman, made a speech in which he alleged that violence and intimidation were rampant within the SIU, that union elections were not being held in an open and democratic way, and that many other illegal and corrupt practices occurred within that union.
As soon as I saw the press reports of Dr. Shulman's speech, I requested that he turn over to me any information or evidence he might have to substantiate his charges, which I regarded as extremely serious. Reference to my response to the Shulman allegations was made in the

Ontario legislature on November 22, 1974, by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Hon. Robert Welch, who said he had heard two news reports referring to my request for specific factual information from Dr. Shulman.
On the same day, November 22, criminal charges following from the eight months of police investigation into the SIU were finally laid. The Ontario authorities laid five charges, and all were related to one incident that took place in an SIU hall. Two of the charges were subsequently dropped. The remaining three charges were processed by the Ontario government under the Criminal Code, and required no federal government involvement.
When several days passed without a response from Dr. Shulman to my request for the information he claimed to have, I phoned the then Solicitor General of Ontario, the Hon. George Kerr. I asked him to provide me with any information in his possession that would support the demand he and other spokesmen of the provincial government were making for a federal royal commission or judicial inquiry into the activities of the SIU.
May I remind the House that under the constitution, as the province of Ontario is fully aware, any wrongdoing that involves violation of the Criminal Code must be handled by the government of the province in which the alleged crimes were committed. This is the only level of government that can legally take action in this kind of situation. If, however, any alleged misconduct by SIU officers was in the area of industrial relations, then, of course, it would probably come under the Canada Labour Code since the SIU operates and bargains in an industry that falls under federal jurisdiction.
It was by no means clear at that time whether the allegations and investigations covered both spheres of activity, or were confined solely to Criminal Code matters; and the Ontario authorities had been strangely unhelpful in providing clarification. I told Mr. Kerr that I would very much like to see the results of inquiries into the SIU by the police forces of Ontario as they might relate to labour-management relations, and asked him to forward this information to me as soon as possible.
I was not, however, given the kind of co-operation I had the right to expect if I was to be able to judge for myself whether any federal action was called for. The Ontario government, for reasons I can only speculate about, continued to withhold its findings from us.
Nevertheless, Mr. Kerr repeated his demands for a federal investigation into the SIU, even though he admitted he had no new information to offer as the basis for such an inquiry, nor had he forwarded to us the information he already had in his files. In a reply to opposition questions in the legislature on December 9, 1974, he stated:
As far as new information is concerned, I believe what the hon. member for High Park has indicated in his remarks in this House and the information that the police have, all of which is available to the federal officials, is really the information in toto.
During this period, frequent charges and insinuations of a federal government cover-up of the SIU matter were made in the House of Commons and in the media. There was, in fact, no cover-up. We simply had no information on which to act, other than that pertaining to the alleged criminal acts, which came strictly under provincial responsibility.
May 21, 1975

Even on the criminal aspects, we had only the sketchiest of information, and a special express letter promised December 9 and relayed by telephone from Mr. Kerr's office on December 11 added very little more to enlighten us. It was not until early in January that we obtained access to files of the Ontario police, when an official of the Department of Justice was dispatched to Toronto to examine them.
When certain affidavits alleging hiring hall irregularities were turned over to me on December 12, my deputy minister, at my request, directed officials of my department to undertake their own separate investigation, with specific reference to abuses of the hiring hall system. A Department of Labour officer was assigned December 23 and his investigation commenced on January 2, 1975.
The outcome of the justice department investigation, as the Minister of Justice disclosed on April 29, was that no further inquiry by his department was necessary in view of the evidence obtained by his officials. If there was to be a federal inquiry, it would be initiated by the labour department under the terms of the Canada Labour Code, and it would relate to industrial relations matters alone.
I have given this chronology of events to make it clear that at no time was there any attempt by this government to cover up, or stall, or whitewash in respect of alleged SIU wrongdoing. We could not, constitutionally or morally, have acted any differently or any more promptly on this matter, given the lack of sufficient evidence and information on which an earlier federal inquiry into SIU activities was demanded.
The terms of reference for this investigation are as follows:
The investigation group will examine allegations and evidence concerning practices followed by officers or persons associated with the Seafarers' International Union and will carry out such investigatory activity as it deems necessary in order to:
(a)	determine whether there exist now or have occurred violations of part V of the Canada Labour Code and what they are, so that appropriate legal action may be taken, and
(b)	provide detailed information upon which can be based a realistic assessment of the adequacy of existing provisions of part V of the code for protecting both individual rights and the public interest.
The investigation will be carried out under the authority of the Minister of Labour pursuant to section 196 of part V of the Canada Labour Code. It will require, in the first instance, the full co-operation of police forces that have already investigated aspects of allegations concerning the SIU in making available information already in their possession. I might add that the RCMP also have indicated they are prepared to co-operate with officials of my department in carrying out the terms of reference and the investigation.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Too little, too late.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I received a copy of this excuse for a statement at approximately 17 minutes to three. I would not accept an apology from the minister even if he were to give one. I think this type of waiting until the last minute to give a copy to opposition spokesmen who are to reply is a matter which we on this side have continually reminded the government about. We do not like it.
As I look at the minister's statement, it appears to be one of the cheapest shots I have ever heard in all my short life. It is extremely partisan. He went into what he described as the strange action of the government of Ontario. That is the phrase which really brought me to my feet, "the strange action of the Ontario government". In the midst of an election year, the minister chronologically outlines an event, blaming everyone except himself for his ineptitude. I am very shocked at the way in which the minister conducted himself. All those backbenchers can laugh. They laugh at anything whether it is serious or not. This is a serious matter.
What this statement does is indicate that the minister did not have any knowledge concerning what to do until April 29. It also passes the buck to the province of Ontario. Finally, it makes up an excuse for the minister's own inaction. Mr. Speaker, this entire scenario, involving even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who did not want us to become involved because it would appear as if we were acting in a totalitarian way, involving the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who procrastinated to some degree, and involving the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), has been nothing but an unwarranted delay and a callous disregard for the rights of individuals in respect of alleged union mismanagement. Under no circumstances, particularly in this country in 1975, should Canadians live in fear. Does the minister care? Will the hon. member opposite keep still, because he might learn something? Section 196 states:
The minister, upon application or of his own initiative may do such things as to him seem likely to maintain or secure industrial peace and to promote conditions favourable to the settlement of industrial disputes or differences.
Here we have a minister who goes around the country talking about consensus in terms of industrial peace, while a matter has been sitting on his lap for almost a year. He turned a deaf ear to the pleas from the province of Ontario, a deaf ear to the opposition and to the people of Canada. It seems to me that the Minister of Labour ignored the legitimate request made by the province calling for a judicial inquiry and conveniently forgot that the federal government had established a federal commission of inquiry on Great Lakes shipping in 1962. He ignored the fact that Mr. Justice T. J. Norris recommended that the SIU be placed under federal trusteeship and that the federal government, after great political pressure, attempted to extradite Banks from the United States. The following is the advice given by Mr. Justice Norris:
All police forces, federal, provincial and municipal, should extend their efforts to the utmost in co-operation with each other-avoiding jurisdictional jealousies-to the end that there shall be certainty in the enforcement of the law and that respect for the law will be maintained.
This was completely ignored by the minister. It is therefore easy to conclude that the government during this

May 21, 1975

entire matter attempted to shift, and still does, all responsibility to the province, conveniently forgetting that it had a role to play in this very serious matter. There have been allegations for some time describing an atmosphere of tyranny and fear within the organization, with the executives riding roughshod over the rank and file members. There are allegations of violence, voting irregularities and improper hiring hall activities, all of which should have been dealt with long before this.
Now the minister comes before us and says that he could not move prior to April 29. The minister says that that is not true. He can think what he wants. All I know is that his statement speaks for itself. I let the minister carry on with his comments, but he has rudely interrupted me. The minister might at least have the decency to sit there and take his lumps. It is necessary that we who are couched with responsibility determine who controls the waterfront and, indeed, who controls the union and to what extent, particularly when it is alleged that there may be offshore interference.
I believe the terms of reference of the minister leave much to be desired. They are very restrictive. I do not know what they mean. It is difficult to understand what they mean. I will give the minister some advice in terms of what I think he should have spelled out. All of these allegations which have attracted public attention, not only those concerned with individual criminal occurrences but also those which unquestionably relate to the general conduct of the union, have a direct effect upon the civil rights, freedom of choice and working conditions of the members, and accordingly one can readily conclude that all the allegations are actually symptomatic of gross mismanagement of the union's affairs. This is one reason the inquiry is needed.
As far back as December 10, 1974, the province of Ontario made known its views. The minister says no, but I know there is a lot of hanky-panky which takes place. When the minister tells me that the province of Ontario will not co-operate, I say shame on the minister. He is attempting to shaft the province of Ontario just because it is preparing for an election. If one reads that statement very closely, one will notice that three of the six pages are taken up in blaming the province of Ontario for inaction. Let me say me say this without prejudging the matter.


An hon. Member:: Here come the judge!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not particularly like that comment. I advise the hon. member to be careful in the future because I am liable to take it the wrong way. I will not this time. The hon. member gets my point. If he does not, see me later on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Without prejudging this matter, I believe that trade unions must not only be above suspicion but must seem to be above suspicion. Accordingly, any legitimate union should not be adverse to having its affairs scrutinized. As a matter of fact, I believe the president has suggested that he would welcome any inquiry. I hope he still stands by those words, even though I may

be paraphrasing them. Without restricting the generality of any terms of reference-and I do not accept the type of terms of reference which the minister indicated to us today-I believe such reference should include the following allegations: violence, intimidation, other criminal occurrences, voting irregularities, blacklisting, all hiring hall activities, the matter of dues, misuse of union funds, power struggles within the union dating from at least 1971, and political impropriety.
I should like to say, in conclusion, that we in this party ask, indeed demand, that any recommendation stemming from the inquiry be acted upon as expeditiously as possible in order to ensure that if this union has not been democratized, it will be, and if there are charges to be laid, they will be laid.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, here is a case which has been in the headlines every day for almost a year. Finally, after all these months, we get a statement and a proposal from the minister which I consider be one of the most disappointing I have ever heard from any minister in the years in which I have been in parliament. After all these months the minister has laboured and produced a mouse. The minister proposes to do as little as possible, certainly as little as he is legally required to do. The only way he could do less than he proposes would be to do nothing at all.
The minister is critical of the Ontario provincial government. He claims that they should have co-operated with the federal government and he deplores their failure to do so. If it is true that they have refused to co-operate with him and to supply him with information which they have, then I deplore their failure to co-operate with him. But having said that, I have to say to the minister that the terms of reference which he is giving to the investigating body which he proposes to set up are far too narrow.
That body should have the power to investigate all the allegations which have been made. I will not list them all, but let me give a few of the allegations that have been made: there was political patronage; there were illegal political contributions made to important members of parliament, probably to cabinet ministers; there was, and is, violence on the docks; seamen had been beaten up; there is a lack of democracy in the SIU. If the minister really wanted to know something about the SIU past and present, he did not have to appoint a commission. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) was a part of the team of lawyers who acted in the inquiry, the Norris commission, and I am sure he could have filled in the government quite extensively about the misdeeds of the SIU in the not too distant past.
The minister says that on the basis of a statement made on April 29, 1975, by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)-I quote from page 5 of the minister's statement-it was decided not to proceed with the request by the Ontario government for an inquiry into allegations involving the SIU. The Minister of Justice said the evidence he had received did not warrant an inquiry and the Minister of Labour would have to decide whether an inquiry was justified under the Canada Labour Code.
In view of the fact that one of the allegations is that present ministers of the Crown in this government
May 21, 1975

received large contributions from the SIU, I for one am pretty skeptical about any opinions expressed by the Minister of Justice. I would like to know who made the decision that the request by the Ontario government for an inquiry involving the SIU should not be proceeded with. Was it the Minister of Justice himself, or was it made on the basis of advice from the law officers of the department? I think this is a very important question that must be answered.
The Minister of Labour wanted the material which the Ontario solicitor general had dealing with the facts and allegations about the supposed misdeeds of the SIU. I think that was a legitimate request for him to make. I think the members of this House have a right to have placed on the record, and to have tabled, the report by the Minister of Justice or the report to the Minister of Justice by his law officers advising against proceeding in the way suggested by the Ontario government. I think the minister and the government should take steps to table that kind of information.
We believe that the terms of reference for this proposed investigation are far too restrictive. I can only conclude by saying that it is not too late for the minister and the government to broaden the terms of reference of the body set up to inquire into the matter, members of which would be named entirely by the government, or possibly an inquiry carried out by a board appointed jointly by the federal government and the government of Ontario, if that could be arranged. The terms of reference should be so broadened as to make it possible for all the allegations to be looked into. We hope that members of the board will be appointed as quickly as possible, and that the inquiry will be conducted as expeditiously as possible so that the public can know what truth, if any, there is in the many allegations of misdeeds in the application of justice in this respect.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I must say that I have no congratulations to offer to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) because while the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) complained of not having received the minister's statement earlier, we did not receive it in French. I wanted to mention this because before listening to his statement, I went to meet the people in charge; I told the minister that I needed a copy of his statement in French because I wanted to read this document before making my comments. I was told: "Sorry." They did not have the time, they are sorry! If this were the first time that this has happened, I would have kept quiet, but it is not the first time that we have not received a copy in French of statements made in the House by ministers. The government should at least stop broadcasting throughout the country that the bilingualism policy will soon be implemented across the country, and it should start by establishing bilingualism in Parliament so that the French-speaking members can be on the same level as their English-speaking colleagues and that, by ministers statements can be made available in French. I hope that this time we shall be heard because it is always disagreeable to come back to these matters.
I listened to the minister when he made his statement and when, as always, he put the blame on another govern-

ment. He did not act because the Ontario government did not give him all he needed. The Ontario government may have its failings, but I believe that the minister of Labour also has some failings of his own as concerns large unions.
I do not know if the Seafarers International Union is also an American subsidiary like the QFL is in the province of Quebec. We always have to depend on the Americans to have unions and, often, they have very close collusions with the people in government, which brings about the conflicts that we are now seeing throughout Canada, as well as in Quebec and as concerns the QFL. So much so that we must wonder which is the most rotten, unions or governments.
Even though there are complaints against multinational corporations, even though it is said that multinational corporations must be fought, in my opinion, parties such as the New Democratic Party or other parties, should denounce those multinational unions, those unions which are imported and cannot be checked by the government because their head is too far away.
I hope that the enquiry that the minister has at long last decided to order will be thorough and that it will require that, in the future, our Canadian unions become Canadian and to cease being American. I hope so because the difficulty for Quebec as well as Canada is always the same, so much that the QFL's contributions are sent to Washington. The Canadian government will have to demand of those unions that they become Canadian unions so that it may have better control over them and detect the trouble makers within their membership.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Where is the minister?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the minister one or two questions. I related to him certain matters which I thought should be included in the terms of reference but not restricting the generality of the overall picture. I would like to have the assurance of the minister that the reference includes looking into alleged matters of violence, intimidation, other criminal occurrences, voting irregularities, blacklisting, all hiring hall activities, the question of dues, misuse of union funds, power struggles from within the union dated from at least 1971, and political impropriety. Do all those matters come within the terms of reference which the minister has just laid before this House by way of a statement?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would say yes to that question on the basis that, first, we refer to violations of part V of the Canada Labour Code and, second, we are asking those people investigating, including the RCMP, to tell us that if the Labour Code is ineffective in dealing with many of these matters and if its provisions are not adequate, to investigate in any event and advise what should be done with respect to strengthening the code to provide for all these types of alleged misconduct.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Could the minister advise when the inquiry will be instituted; and in this regard will there be

May 21, 1975

one commissioner involved or will there be two as suggested by the act?


John Carr Munro: There will be officials of the Department of Labour and Mr. M. C. Carson, industry specialist, conciliation and arbitration branch. In addition, the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister, Mr. W. B. Kelly, will be available at all times to provide support and additional resources as may be required, and I might say also that officials of the justice department will be available to co-operate with the RCMP in carrying out this further investigation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister's answer to that last question of mine amazes me, because I can only come to the conclusion that this will be a complete whitewash. Did the minister not consider the advisability of appointing one or two independent persons as did the Minister of Transport, I believe, who brought in a third party not associated with his department or with the Minister of Justice? I am not imputing-


John Carr Munro: Oh, no.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think it is up to me at least to speak on behalf of the Canadian people. The minister has just said that there will be members of his own department investigating, when there has been a cry across this land that there has been slowness on the part of the minister. Did he consider the appointment of one or two independent persons who could do this job, thereby giving us on this side the opportunity of saying that the minister is certainly on the right track? At this time we do not think so. Did the minister consider this, and what was the reason he did not pursue the appointment of independent inquiry commissioners?


John Carr Munro: First, the Minister of Justice indicated that he felt, on the basis of information he had received and non the basis of initiatives taken by the federal government to obtain that information-information which was never turned over to us from the province-that an inquiry of that nature was not warranted. So we acted on our own in order to determine whether something should be done. The Minister of Justice then referred it to me on April 29. I considered the information and came to the conclusion that there were allegations contained therein which would warrant an investigation into the whole industrial relations aspect of this entire affair under the Canada Labour Code. I might add that it was something asked for by the Ontario government some months ago, but they never forwarded any information to us to back it up. On the basis of information we received on April 29,1 decided to take action.
In answer to the hon. member's question, I think, with all respect, he is casting aspersions on certain public servants in the labour department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Charles Joseph Clark: They are responsible to you; you can shut them up.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member for Hamilton West talked about my interrupting him. He gave me a lecture on the impropriety of interruption, and now he proceeds to do it himself.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am sorry, sir.


John Carr Munro: I think that the integrity of the officials of the Ministry of Labour is above reproach. If the hon. member was not imputing motives, I will accept that; but in case there should be any question with respect to the impartiality of the investigation to be conducted, the officials are merely to help and assist the RCMP if required-and surely no member of this House, particularly the hon. member for Hamilton West, I take it, is questioning the entirely independent approach and thoroughness of the RCMP.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of very brief questions for the minister. I gave certain information to the minister last December involving some individuals in Montreal-I think their names were Baldo, Diamond and McGuire-who were apparently associated with the SIU and had criminal records. I also made information available about a couple of Toronto private detectives, Max Chofosky and Terry O'Reilly, shadowing SIU members. None of this information was incorrect, as far as I know, or ever denied. I wonder whether the minister did any investigating into this and whether he proposes, as the parliamentary secretary indicated last December, to consider making changes implicit in the grievance procedure in part V of the Canada Labour Code so there would be quicker and better remedies available to SIU members if they wished to bring grievances to the attention of the authorities, including the minister.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, to answer the latter part of the hon. member's question first, I would indicate to him that I have already become convinced, and indicated so in the House several months ago, that when we have the next group of amendments to the Canada Labour Code it will include, hopefully, amendments correcting the potential abuses-they are all too potential-in the hiring hall type of system. I have come to that conclusion independent of these actions being taken now. The tendency may or may not be to verify and emphasize that type of action. We committed ourselves to action in this sense, in any event.
In respect of the other question, I think it was the Minister of Justice who indicated, in answer to a question asked in the House, that he would have these allegations investigated. This is his function, not mine. I can only assume, on the basis of the investigation that was conducted by the Minister of Justice, that this was taken into account. This is a confidential report which was turned over to me, and now I feel that further investigation is required under the Canada Labour Code.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the minister for taking this step. I should like to ask him if, within
May 21, 1975

the parameters of the investigation, he is going to look into the hiring hall practices which Mr. Justice Norris questioned in 1962 and which were also brought up in this House on numerous occasions since then. Is he going to take steps to see, as far as possible, that people with criminal records are dissociated from the labour movement?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as far as the former question is concerned, yes, I have already answered that. There are abuses that must be corrected with respect to the hiring hall type of situation, without imputing anything with reference to this particular union at this time because it is under investigation. I am totally satisfied on that particular score.
As far as preventing anyone with a criminal record from assuming elected office in a union, that raises very serious questions. I should like to consult with my colleagues in the government; certainly with the Minister of Justice. It involves the whole question of pardon, of the nature of the criminal offence and whether we are prepared to say that anyone with a criminal record can no longer be elected to a position in a union irrespective of what the offence may be. If you just say "a criminal offence", that is a rule we do not even apply to members of parliament. If you want to apply the type of broad brush to the union movement that you are not prepared to apply in this House, I do not think civil libertarians in this House would find it an acceptable procedure.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. To complete the questioning, I propose to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Bellechasse, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask two questions, but perhaps I will just indicate the first one and concentrate on the second.
My first question had to do with what the minister meant by an "investigation group", which is the term he used in his statement concerning the inquiry that is to be made. To save time, I will say that the answer the minister has now given was not very satisfactory. We had hoped it would be an independent inquiry. It hardly seems to meet that specification to have an inquiry conducted, under the direction of the minister, by persons in his own department. One wonders whether that investigation group would have the authority of an inquiry with the right to call witnesses, examine them under oath, and so on.
My second question has to do with the material that was turned over to the Minister of Labour by the Minister of Justice on April 29. In his statements, the minister made a great deal of the unwillingness of the Ontario government to turn certain material over to him. I hope he is not going to play the same game with us; I hope he is prepared to table in this House the material that was turned over to him by the Minister of Justice on April 29. The minister referred to it in the first paragraph of his statement. He referred to it again in what I believe was the fourteenth paragraph of his statement. There is also a reference to

that material in an appendix that was added to the statement, although I do not think that was added to Hansard.
May I put it to the minister in the form of a question, although I think Your Honour can see the makings of a point of order. Is the minister now prepared to table the material that was turned over to him by the Minister of Justice on April 29, 1975, on the basis of which he made the decision to set up this investigation group?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with the first part of the hon. member's comments first, let me make it quite clear that the RCMP will be conducting the investigation. Inasmuch as it deals with labour relations matters, they may wish assistance from officials of the Department of Labour; if they do, that assistance is available. The Department of Labour does not have an investigatory unit of its own with respect to violations of the Labour Code. It may be argued now or at a subsequent time in this House that we should have such a unit, but we do not.
I may say that the RCMP has considerable reluctance to enter areas that involved criminality because they feel that is completely within the jurisdiction of the provinces, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Quebec Provincial Police and other provincial police forces. I do not argue with that. Having read the report of April 29, however, it was my feeling that inasmuch as there were areas that affected industrial relations, then that was sufficient basis on which the RCMP could be called in to assist in the investigations. That general thesis was accepted by the commissioner of the RCMP and so they will be conducting the investigation, with assistance.
As far as the other question is concerned, whether this report of April 29 would be made public, if that is not a collective decision of the government at this time, certainly it emanated from an official of the Department of Justice who was called in to undertake this particular function. I think perhaps it would be proper to seek advice on this question from the Minister of Justice. I am going to add that in terms of my own view, of which I suppose there will be some considerable criticism, having seen the report of April 29 I know that the allegations are based on hearsay, which many of these investigation reports of necessity are. They are not the basis for laying charges; they are allegations which may cause suspicions to be aroused, but are not the basis upon which there would be any proof of criminality sufficient to condemn anyone in our democratic society.
Surely that is not the type of report which, for security reasons and reasons of pure natural justice, should be made public. That reputations would be irretrievably damaged without any substance sufficient for proof in a court of law, seems to me to be the overriding prohibition against documents of this kind being made public.
It was on the basis of this type of report that I came to the conclusion that the present action was warranted. If further investigations of the nature I have suggested here are made-going into allegations of this kind and finding out in the process of investigation that there is substance to them-I think we can count on the independence and thoroughness of the RCMP to recommend that appropriate action be taken either alone or in conjunction with the

May 21, 1975

police forces of the provinces. I hope that answers the hon. member's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this time, in accordance with the citation which says that the sort of point of order I am raising should be raised when a reference is made to certain documents. Perhaps we will not need to argue this until a later occasion, as the minister or some other minister may agree to table the documents. It seems to me, however, that this is an instance when the documents ought to be put on the table of the House. I draw to Your Honour's attention citation 159 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. Please take note of paragraph (2) which says:
A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he is prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevent counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence. The principle is so reasonable that it has not been contested; and when the objection has been made in time, it has been generally acquiesced in.
The first sentence of paragraph (4) says:
Official papers quoted during a debate should be laid on the table of the House.
At the end of paragraph (4) Beauchesne says:
Mr. Speaker ruled: "That the point of order was well taken, and that the papers cited by the honourable members for Essex and Northumberland should be placed in the possession of the House".
I had paragraph (5) in mind when I raised my point of order. It reads:
The point of order, that a member should lay on the table a document which he quotes, should be taken when reference is made to the document.
May I point out that the Minister of Labour has based his whole case on documents which were turned over to him on April 29, 1975, by the Minister of Justice. He did not stand up and say he had made his own decision. The whole case is based on material supplied to him by the Minister of Justice, as set out in paragraph 1 of his statement which says:
This further investigation results from new material which was turned over to me by the Minister of Justice on April 29.
Likewise, in paragraph 14 the minister said:
The outcome of the justice department investigation, as the Minister of Justice disclosed on April 29, was that no further inquiry by his department was necessary in view of the evidence obtained by his officials. If there was to be a federal inquiry, it would be initiated by the labour department under the terms of the Canada Labour Code, and it would relate to industrial relations matters alone.
There is an appendix, or chronology, attached to the statement. On the last page, paragraph 18 again refers to material that was turned over to the Minister of Labour by the Minister of Justice. How can we assess the meaning of the minister's decision which he says is based on certain material if we do not have that material? It may well be, from what the minister said a moment ago, that after he discusses this question with the Minister of Justice or other officials he will come forward in a few days and table the document. That being the case, I do not see the need to argue the point extensively now. I want to enter this caveat, as it were: it seems clear from the citation and from our practices that the minister, having cited, having 
referred to or having based his decision on material which was turned over to him by the Minister of Justice on April 29, 1975, should let us see that material. I submit we are entitled to have it tabled in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding of the citation is similar to that expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his first argument. He referred to Beauchesne and argued that when a minister has quoted from a statement, he must table it. This is similar to the rule applying in a court of law. According to that rule, a document which is cited must be filed. That is not an equation; it is a similarity. In a court of law, the rule is that the document which has been cited must be filed by counsel who quoted from it. In the House of Commons, the rule is that when a minister quotes from a document, he must table it. But the minister has not quoted from a document, although he made extensive references to it.
Unless I can be persuaded otherwise, it seems to me that an application should be made when the Minister of Justice is in the House for the tabling of these documents. I bring forward this argument so that hon. members may be forewarned and prepared to argue the point more extensively if it is raised when the Minister of Justice is in the House. At this time I would not, on the basis of the present argument, compel the Minister of Labour to table the document because he has not quoted from it. However, I leave the matter open for argument for when the Minister of Justice is in the House. The document was offered by that minister. If the hon. member wishes to raise the point at another time when the Minister of Justice is in the House, it can be argued more fully at that time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to extend this discussion on the inquiry which has been announced by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). However, I would like to ask him three very precise questions, and I am satisfied that he will give proper answers.
When an inquiry is launched, it is because there are hidden facts which the public and Parliament must be made aware of. This is the reason for an inquiry. Then, I should believe that we will have a real inquiry, a thorough study and not a superficial inquiry.
Will the investigators have all the necessary powers to order public servants, employees of Seafarers' Union and also federal government employees, to appear and to make sworn statements?
Will there be an in-depth study in order to find out where the control the Seafarers' Union really lies, and whether financial contributions have been made to the electoral fund of any political party over the last few years and which might have interfered with the freedom of some members of parliament?
Will the inquiry commissionners be allowed to call the Minister of Labour as a witness, and in the affirmative, will the minister agree to appear?
Those are the three questions to which I should like to get an answer, in order to satisfy a little the needs of parliamentarians and of the Canadian people as a whole.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this would be an inquiry which the RCMP would conduct in the same way as it conducts any other investigation. It would use various techniques at the disposal of the police. This does not involve the police force, in the normal investigation of matters, with power to call witnesses and force testimony under oath. They apply other methods in conducting an investigation. This investigation, I repeat, is being conducted by the RCMP.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In depth?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I believe it will be an in-depth inquiry. There are matters here of a doubtful nature. Allegations are being made, according to information I received on April 29, which I considered ought to be dealt with. There should be an effort made to asertain whether these are valid allegations. If they are, they may warrant further action. They may warrant criminal charges being laid; that is possible. The investigation does not preclude that possibility, if these matters are to be looked into. This does not preclude the possibility that this matter may warrant a full-depth inquiry of the nature some hon. members of the House are calling for.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And who decides that?


John Carr Munro: The government of the day decides these questions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are still secret.


John Carr Munro: The Leader of the Opposition must be aware of this. This does not mean that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, is not determined to look at the material available. But that is not the basis on which a full inquiry should be conducted. In this country we do not have an inquisitorial type of justice. We do not have the possibility of undertaking some kind of search unless there is something substantive on which to base the search. That is why the RCMP have been called in. It is on the basis of information they received. As far as I am concerned, it is to determine, especially in those areas that deal with the full industrial relations sector, whether there is enough substance to any of those allegations to warrant further action along the lines recommended. I already indicated that we made the further conclusion with regard to hiring practices.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I thank the hon. Minister for his answer. I now have a short question for him. Has the RCMP been given a deadline for its inquiry and report to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang)?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is no set period of time when this matter will be in the hands of the RCMP. I can only hope, as does the House, that the RCMP will conduct their investigation with dispatch.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we fulfil our responsibilities in this House by beating around the bush

as we have done this afternoon. There are two large "why's" that come out of this weak, vacillating, mealy-mouthed statement of the minister this afternoon. They both relate back to him and the extremely partisan, political way that he has conducted himself in this House. They relate back to serious allegations about a cozy relationship between this and other ministers with this particular union.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When I hear statements like that from the hon. member who just sat down, I just shudder at the thought that he could occupy the position of attorney general of the province of Ontario. Allegations of cozy relationships and innuendoes with regard to my personal character are totally unwarranted. If the hon. member had the instinct of any responsible parliamentarian, instead of indulging in this type of filth he would be fully aware that the RCMP were called in to investigate these allegations of cozy relationships and bribes alleged by Dr. Shulman. All the federal officials, including the cabinet ministers named, were thoroughly investigated by the RCMP. The RCMP exonerated those officials of the charges. This champion of parliamentary democracy ignores the exoneration completely and reiterates charges that have been proved false. I think that type of conduct is disgraceful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The fact of the matter is that the new provisions under which we are operating do not provide for any further speeches or statements on the other side. We are in a period where questions can be put to the minister. This is not the time for representations. If the hon. member has questions, I ask him to put them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, they both relate back to the same thing, the whole question here of that relationship. It is an admitted relationship. Let me just put my two questions. First, the RCMP obviously needs no directive or mandate from this particular minister to investigate the SIU. There is no question about that whatsoever. If it is an RCMP investigation, I simply ask the minister, why is it not the Department of Justice; why is it the Department of Labour? That is my principal question.
If it is a police investigation, why is it not a normal investigation? Why is it not a full-fledged inquiry? The minister has just indicated we are not going to have that. Is this inquiry going to be open? Is it going to be judicial? Are there going to be subpoena powers? Will they have the powers of contempt provisions? This all goes back to the fact that these are going to be civil servants under this particular minister. My first question is, why is it not a Department of Justice investigation? Why is it not a judicial inquiry? Why could they not find a judge, another Cliche, to do a proper job instead of a whitewash?
Under all these circumstances, and with all these serious allegations, the one remaining main question that the minister has not answered today is, why the delay in doing this? Why did they not do it a long time ago? If the minister does not like these imputations and allegations, then obviously the question still arises: the best way of defeating that type of thing last November when the issue first came up would have been to appoint a full-fledged



inquiry, not a weak-kneed, mealy-mouthed thing nine or ten months after the issue first arose.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the series of questions the hon. member has just raised. Again, the hon. member asks why we did not conduct a full-fledged inquiry back when these matters were first raised. When he was attorney general of a province, if somebody made some charges which he would not even be able to see and which he would not be able to determine whether there was any foundation to them, would he run into the provincial legislature and appoint an inquiry? He would probably be one of the most outstandingly incompetent and unjust provincial attorneys general we have ever known. That is completely ridiculous.
The fact is, and the hon. member knows it, that when a government takes the responsibility for setting up a full-fledged inquiry which is an inquisitorial type of procedure-and the hon. member is aware of that-then in terms of political morality you have to be satisfied there is sufficient substance to the allegations to warrant an inquiry. If the hon. member wants to be sincere in these charges, he ought to look to his colleagues in the province. I gave this chronology for a purpose. This is a factual statement of the province's behaviour in making facts available to us upon which we could base any judgment for an inquiry. While there were cabinet ministers of a provincial government insisting in the provincial House on a federal inquiry, and while there were charges by Dr. Shulman, we immediately asked for the information upon which they were justifying the conclusion that the federal government, (a) should become involved, and (b) should have an inquiry.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You are involved.


John Carr Munro: Just a minute. They are the ones who are saying this. They are the ones who have the facts at their disposal which led them to that conclusion. The OPP and the metropolitan police were involved for months investigating the SIU. It seems entirely reasonable for the federal government to say, "If you are making these charges and suggesting there should be a federal inquiry, turn over to us all the information you have so that we can be in a similar position to make some judgment as to whether that type of action is warranted."
Indeed, weeks went by and we did not get the information. In the chronology here, there was a letter-I think it was dated December 11-which stated we should have a federal inquiry. They did not turn over any material or any of the facts on which they based their conclusion that there should be a federal inquiry. All these charges were being made about a cover-up and suggestions that there should be a federal inquiry. They kept laying it on the federal government, but at the same time they did not turn over any material. That is a pretty nice ploy, but I do not have to respect it and I do not respect it.
If they want the federal government to have an inquiry and institute what should be, in a democracy, a unique procedure in terms of an inquisitorial type of justice, they should be prepared to say they do not want to conduct the inquiry, they think we should do it, and give us the

information they have which they think justifies undertaking that type of action. That did not occur.
What did occur? Since we did not get the information, we decided that something had to be done and that we should try to find out ourselves. A federal labour official looked into the affidavits that were turned over to us by a member or members of the opposition. Justice sent an official down to Toronto to see the relevant people in the police forces, and it was at that time, having sent our own officials and after repeated requests for information which went unanswered, that we started to get some information ourselves.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The files were turned over?


John Carr Munro: Yes, they were, over a course of weeks. If my memory serves me correctly, the final updated report was some time in April and it was turned over to me on April 29. It was on the information that the federal people obtained that we decided to conduct this present investigation. If it had not been for the information that the federal people obtained, in my opinion to this day we still would have no facts provided by any inquiry conducted in Ontario on which to base an investigation. If that history of the situation does not leave serious questions regarding proper conduct on the part of the province of Ontario, then I do not know what does.
My hon. friend for Hamilton West has criticized me. Some of us have been criticized for months while innuendoes and slurs of all kinds have been made in regard to this situation, and I think the hon. member is fully aware of them. While they were being made, we tried to get the information that they already had in their possession so we could form some conclusions. The only conclusion we could come to was that we had to get this information ourselves, and that is what we proceeded to do in the discharge of my responsibility.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is already very hot in the chamber, so I will try and cool it down. I do not want to get the minister too flustered. We do not want to lose him for another month, although I do not think we would miss very much. I should like to ask a couple of brief but specific questions based on the premise that the inquiry will include looking at the voting regulations. Perhaps before putting my questions the minister could assure the House that the inquiry will include voting irregularities.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think voting irregularities would be included under both (a) and (b) of the terms of reference. The RCMP have been authorized not only to conduct an investigation as to any possible offences under the Canada Labour Code, but also to suggest where they feel no adequate protection is given by the Canada Labour Code against abuses of the nature described in this House on numerous occasions, and how the code can be strengthened.


Otto John Jelinek: Then based on that reply, which I am happy was an affirmative reply, I should like to question
May 21, 1975

the legality of the present ratification of the union contract as well as the election of the president of the union.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Any questions hon. members put to the minister at the moment must relate to his statement or the investigation, the terms of reference and related matters, and not go beyond that to the affairs of the union itself, which is a substantive matter. If the hon. member has other questions to put to the minister about his statement or the investigation, he should do so now.


Otto John Jelinek: In that case, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can rephrase my question and ask the minister, when the inquiry looks into the irregularities of the ratification and the presidency of the union, will it also look into the way these votes took place? I have a number of affidavits, and it is a known fact that many members of the union were forced to vote in different places. For example, I have an affidavit which states:
I voted for the union president in four different halls for the same vote and about 35 to 40 others in my groups did the same.
As far as ratification of the contract is concerned, a group in one area voted nearly 100 per cent against it, yet it was passed. When they questioned the result of the vote, the union president told them that "it was too damned bad-accept it or leave it". I could go on to give further examples, but the question is: Will this inquiry have the power to prove the illegality of these two different points that I touched on, the ratification of the contract and the presidency of the union, and perhaps retroactively deal with voting procedures at the time the votes were taken?


John Carr Munro: Intimidation practices as a technique in the operation of the union, voting irregularities and that sort of thing, in my view are included within these terms of reference.


Otto John Jelinek: May I put a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? The minister did not say whether the possibility exists of doing these things illegally so far as the presidency and the contract are concerned. Can the minister assure the House that the police report will be tabled in the House, as well as a general report from the Solicitor General; and if not, why not?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated what my view would be with respect to the tabling of documents or information obtained in the normal investigative procedures used by the police. For one thing, I think the police themselves would find such a step abhorrent because it would totally undermine their investigatory role. Not only that, but horrendous damage could be done to an individual whose name might be mentioned but who is never charged because there is no substance to the allegations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The police report to you.


John Carr Munro: Yes, they do. There are many lawyers among the opposition ranks. For example, I think the hon. member for Calgary North would be shocked at the proposal that reports resulting from investigations conducted by police forces should be tabled in the House. I cannot believe that any lawyer having an appreciation of civil liberties in this country would ever
Order Paper Questions
recommend such a step. In all the years I have been in the House, I cannot ever recall hearing anyone in the opposition recommend such a course.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is why we have inquiries.


Otto John Jelinek: Would the minister answer as to the illegality of the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,115, 1,870, 1,881, 1,915, 1,974, 2,047, 2,051, 2,059, 2,064, 2,125, 2,179, 2,233, 2,296, 2,303, 2,332, 2,396, 2,433 and 2,435.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,591 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,911?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Laprise: Was the anthropology department of Laval University assigned the "Illunguat" project and, if so (a) was it completed (b) were the findings published (c) was a deadline set?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: The "Illunguat" project, which was to enable the Eskimos of New Quebec to define and describe their housing requirements as demonstrated in a prototype house, was carried out by the Department of Anthropology of Laval University. This project was financed by a grant of $8,868, made under Part V, of the National Housing Act. The results of the project which has been completed, are in the form of plastic parts of a house and its furnishings, which may be arranged and rearranged as a prototype house depending upon the requirements of the inhabitant. An example of the project is available for viewing in the Quebec Regional Office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Also, a complete set of the project is now available for use in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Quebec Regional Office.

May 21, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Mazankowski: For each year since 1968, how many employees of CNR have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs while subject to duty or on duty and, of these, how many have been (a) dismissed under Operating Rule "G" (b) reprimanded (c) dismissed, then reinstated because the appeal procedure found in favour of the employee?


Jean Marchand: The
Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Statistics are available only in respect of employees (train and engine crews, yard crews, train dispatchers and telegraphers) subject to the Uniform Code of Operating Rules, of which Rule "G" is a part.
(a)	(b)	(c)1968	13	0	01969	22	0	01970	9	0	91971	13	0	01972	14	2	01973	19	1	71974	32	3	s


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many personnel in (a) the Department of External Affairs (b) the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (c) Canadian International Development Agency speak Arabic?
2.	What efforts are being made to recruit personnel proficient in this language?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1
and 2. (a) There are presently six foreign service officers and one clerk who speak Arabic. In addition two officers are presently studying Arabic on a full-time basis each year prior to the annual examinations for the foreign service a recruitment exercise is conducted by all foreign service departments at Canadian universities. Department of External Affairs representatives on these recruitment terns encourage candidates with a facility in foreign languages to apply for the foreign service competition. Only candidates successful in this competition are offered employment as officers in the foreign service. Proficiency in any foreign language (including Arabic) does not guarantee the acceptance of any candidate applying to the foreign service, (b) Whenever it is considered necessary to recruit personnel speaking a specific language to augment the number already on staff, official recruitment procedures are followed. However, the department's continuing language training program assures a supply of persons trained in languages relevant to their duties abroad. In the next fiscal year four foreign service officers will begin training in the Arabic language, (c) Four employees speak Arabic. No efforts are presently being made to recruit personnel proficient in this language.


Mr. Rynard: 1.	Is it government policy to increase Canadian ownership of Canada's natural resource industry and, if so, in what way does Canada Development Corporation's declared plans for major additional investment in Canada through its marginal 30 per cent interest in Texas Gulf, whereby foreign equity in our resources will always increase at least twice as fast as Canada's own equity meet with this policy?
2.	As opposed to direct investment should not this indirect sellout of Canada's natural resource industry by the Canada Development Corporation be examined by the Foreign Investment Review Board?
3.	What assurance has the government that capital generated by the sale of Connaught facilities and real estate resources in Canada will not be siphoned off in Canada Development Corporation's investment programme?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. The government welcomes the propect of increased Canadian ownership of Canada's natural resources. The purchase by the Canada Development Corporation of 30 per cent of the shares of Texasgulf has helped to increase the Canadian ownership of that particular company which is one of the major developers of Canada's natural resources. This investment by the CDC will also indirectly increase Canada's equity in any future development undertaken by Texasgulf. Yes, it is government policy that Canadians should have greater participation in the ownership of Canada's natural resources. This is an objective which the government intends to pursue jointly with the provincial governments.
2.	The proposed investment is not now reviewable under the Foreign Investment Review Act, and would not likely be reviewable following Second Proclamation of the Act.
3.	Should certain Connaught facilities be sold it will be the responsibility of the Board of Directors of Connaught to decide how to use the proceeds of the sale. Furthermore, it is the CDC Board's responsibility to determine its investment program and the means to finance such program.


Mr. Howie: 1.	(a) What plans are underway to provide new breakwaters, wharfs and haulouts for New Brunswick fishermen (b) on what date will construction start (c) at what cost?
2.	Are any new programmes to provide fishing vessel and gear improvement scheduled for this year or next?
3.	Are there plans to implement an income stabilization plan for fishermen to ensure a reasonable average level of earnings?
4.	Are there definite plans to ensure that Canadians have exclusive fishing rights within two hundred miles of Canadian shoreline?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: 1.
(a) Plans are presently under way to provide two new breakwaters, seven new wharfs, and three haulouts at various locations in New Brunswick, (b) A work schedule for these projects is presently being developed by the Regional Small Craft Harbours Branch Office in Halifax, working in conjunction with the Department of Public Works. These projects are planned to be started and com-

pleted in the fiscal year 1975/76. (c) The cost of these projects is approximately $2,134,000. This amount does not include the maintenance and repair program.
2.	A new vessel assistance program planned to include the modification and conversion of existing fishing vessels is currently being developed. There are no plans to provide assistance for gear improvement other than continuing research in this field.
3.	The design of a program of income supplementation for needy fishermen, to replace the coverage for seasonal unemployment benefits provided by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, has been under study for some time. A number of options have been developed which, if acceptable for the clients, could be implemented as soon as an operational data base is fully in place. It is considered that the program selected must be integrated with programs being developed to rehabilitate the industry and trade based on the groundfish resources of the Atlantic coast.
4.	Canada, at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, has been strongly advocating the concept of the economic zone, an area 188 miles wide beyond a 12 mile Territorial Sea, in which the coastal state would have sovereign rights over the exploitation and management of renewable and non-renewable resources as well as specified rights to control pollution and marine scientific research. With regard to fisheries jursidiction, Canada is also seeking rights over the resources of the continental shelf where the shelf extends beyond the limit of the economic zone and, in addition, is seeking protection for anadromous fish species, such as salmon, when they migrate beyond the economic zone of the state of origin.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Was a contract awarded to R.C.A. Ltd., Montreal, Quebec for experimental communication with the communication technology at a cost of $2,262,806?
2.	What is the function of the procured experimental equipment?
3.	What are expected benefits from such experimentation?
4.	Does the Department of Supply and Services ever question the propriety of such contracts and contracts generally?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Supply and Services and Communications as follows: 1. A contract in that amount was awarded on October 2, 1974 to RCA Ltd. for existing electronic equipment, spares and data, modified in accordance with Department of Communications specifications, for use as part of the Remote User Experimental Terminals and Network Controls System of its Communications Technology Satellite.
2.	The function of the equipment is to transmit signals to and receive signals from the Communications Technology Satellite (CTS). It forms part of the earth station complex required for the experimental use of the satellite.
3.	The CTS Program is a joint Canadian/U.S.A. program involving the use of increased power in the satellite to permit the use of smaller, lower cost earth terminals. Canadian objectives are to assess the possible applications of such high power communications satellites, to develop
Order Paper Questions
and test the techniques and equipment required, and to develop the capability of Canadian industry to meet Canada's requirements for satellite communications systems in general.
4.	The need for goods and services is established by the customer departments. The propriety of the price and other contract conditions is carefully examined, questioned and supported by officers of the department of Supply and Services prior to issuing contracts.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS OFFICE
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of External Affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Department of External Affairs does not have a Parliamentary Returns Office identified as such. Parliamentary returns are among the duties of departmental officials regularly assigned to the Office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS OFFICE
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of Justice?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: There is no Parliamentary Returns Office as such in the Department of Justice. Parliamentary returns are handled by members of the Departmental Secretariat.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS OFFICE
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of Public Works?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Fiscal year 1974/75 operating costs for the Parliamentary Returns Office were as follows: Salaries (two man years) and related costs, $29,465.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS OFFICE
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of Transport?


Jean Marchand: Fiscal year 1974-75: $36,000.

May 21, 1975
Order Paper Questions


ECONOMISTS EMPLOYED BY VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31, 1975, how many economists were employed by the (a) Department of Energy, Mines and Resources (b) Department of the Environment (c) Department of Finance (d) Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (e) Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (f) Department of Regional Economic Expansion (g) Department of National Health and Welfare (h) Office of the Prime Minister (i) Economic Council of Canada?
2.	In each case, what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 2. (a) 82, $2,017,882; (b) 163, $3,794,613; (c) 176, $3,639,992; (d) 72, $1,525,597; (e) 78, $1,858,450; (f) 82, $1,997,662; (g) 169, $3,223,912; (h) 2, $51,000; (i) 38, $809,349. The above answer refers to employees in the Economics, Sociology and Statistics Occupation Group (ES) and does not necessarily mean that all are economists.


OFF-SHORE DRILLING REGULATIONS
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What are the current regulations for off-shore drilling in northern waters with regard to (a) construction specifications (b) safety precautions (c) pollution control generally?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Environment as follows: (a) and (b) The regulations governing the construction specifications and safety precautions for drilling in the onshore as well as in the offshore regions of Northern Canada are contained in the following pieces of legislation: (1) Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act; (2) Canada Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Regulations, and Drafting of Revision of item 2) is underway for replacement by Spring 1976 by: (i) "Canada Oil and Gas Drilling Regulations" (onshore and offshore) and (ii) "Canada Oil and Gas Production Regulations" (onshore and offshore), (c) The primary legislation under which the Government of Canada regulates and controls oil and gas activities is the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. The Canada Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Regulations have been passed under the Act to provide the basic framework of rules for the safety and effectiveness of operations at a wellsite. The primary legislation in regard to "land" administration are the Public Lands Grants Act and the Territorial Lands Act. The Canada Oil
1.	(a)	(b)
(i)	Smith, D.C.
(ii)	McCuaig, R.G.
MacKewn, C.F.
Pensa, C.M.V.
(iii)	Geddes, H .B.
and Gas Land Regulations, promulgated under these Acts, stipulate the terms under which the oil and gas rights are made available for development. Statutory authority in regard to offshore deposits is given to the regulations under the former Act. The following statutes and regulations are also pertinent to the problem of pollution control; the Fisheries Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Regulations promulgated under the Act provides interpretation of (i) the terms "industrial and domestic waste", (ii) where the statute applies, for example, the Act does not apply to the deposit of waste by a ship, and (iii) the quantity of waste which can be deposited. The Canada Shipping Act also provides pollution control legislation with regards to ships. Under the Act, the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations could be used for the control of vessels used in the exploitation or exploration of offshore mineral resources. The Migratory Birds Convention Act Regulations also contain sections for the control of pollution.
Note: A drilling authority issued by the Conservation Engineer designated under Item (1) and (2) is required for each well to be drilled in the northern offshore. Interdepartmental committees are established respectively in Ottawa Headquarters and in regional offices in Whitehorse and Yellowknife to ensure satisfaction of all legislation requirements in respect of (a) construction specifications of drilling, (b) safety precautions, (c) pollution control, and others.


FEDERAL DRUG PROSECUTORS FOR GUELPH, LONDON AND WINDSOR
Mr. Beatty: 1.	(a) What are the names of the federal drug prosecutors for (i) Guelph (ii) London (iii) Windsor (b) how many cases were prosecuted by each on behalf of the government (c) at what cost to the taxpayer?
2.	In each case (a) what groups or individuals were asked to submit lists of recommended lawyers prior to the appointments being made (b) for each individual or group consulted who were the other lawyers recommended?
3.	What criteria were employed in selecting lawyers to prosecute drug cases on behalf of the government?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: 1. See table below: 2 and 3. See answer to question No. 1,952, tabled June 13, 1973, p. 4705.
(to
1973-74	1974-75 (b)	1973-74	April 8)250	231	$20,137.95	$15,086.8312	14	5,530.48	7,004.6711	14	8,567.00	12,549.16[DOT]49	14,741.17	14,022.16*777	[DOT]1,383	39,047,53	41,864.56
Information concerning number of cases for Pensa and Geddes, who had submitted bulk accounts, obtained from Health and Welfare, whose records were in respect of calendar years. Therefore, the figures are for the calendar years 1973 and 1974 respectively.

May 21, 1975


CBC COVERAGE OF PRIME MINISTER'S TRIPS SINCE 1968
Mr. Cossitt: On how many trips outside Canada made by the Prime Minister since April 20, 1968 has he been accompanied or covered in any way by CBC personnel and, in each case (a) what was the place visited and the date of the visit (b) how many personnel were involved in any way?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: CBC records have not been maintained in a manner which would enable the corporation to extract readily and without an inordinate amount of work, time and cost, information on coverage of the Prime Minister's trips outside Canada in the last seven years.


TRANSLATION OF RARE BOOKS INTO ENGLISH
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
security requirement has greatly diminished and there is now no reason for Mr. Gouzenko not to seek employment, (b) Mr. Gouzenko's present pension income is approximately $1,050.00 per month, tax free, which was approved by Treasury Board and is considered adequate, (c) The normal cost of living increases have been granted during the past several years and are in line with the average industrial wage for the particular area of his residence.
3.	The words of the 1946 Report of the Royal Commission were appropriate at the time and the Canadian Government has provided adequate reward for his services.
4.	Mr. Gouzenko's pension is reviewed annually and will be reviewed again in 1975 bearing in mind the cost of living and the average industrial wage increases for his particular area of residence.
Mr. Brisco: Is federal assistance available to aid in the cost of translation of rare books from German, Italian or any other language, to English?


James Hugh Faulkner: No.


MR. IGOR GOUZENKO
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are all the reasons that a government pension was not given to Mr. Igor Gouzenko from 1946 up to the time the government of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker took such action in 1962?
2.	Is the government aware (a) that because of the special circumstances under which he must live, Mr. Gouzenko cannot earn income from regular employment (b) that his present pension income is inadequate to maintain a decent standard of living and that as a result of this he is indebted to a bank in the amount of thirteen thousand dollars (c) that the normal cost of living addition made to his pension has only been applicable for the past several years and is insufficient?
3.	Has the government given serious consideration recently to the words of the 1946 Report of the Royal Commission on the Gouzenko case: "In our opinion Gouzenko by what he has done, has rendered great public service to the people of this country and thereby has placed Canada in his debt"?
4.	Will the government increase Mr. Gouzenko's pension by an adequate amount?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. From 1946 to 1962 Mr. Gouzeako was looked after entirely by the Canadian Government. Since 1962 he has been the recipient of a monthly stipend.
2. (a) Originally Mr. Gouzenko did live under special circumstances and there was fear for his life; however the


ST. LAWRENCE ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK-FEES CHARGED FOR BOATS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In regard to the announcement by Parks Canada that fees would be charged for boats making use of government islands in the St. Lawrence Islands National Parks, how many (a) persons will be involved in collecting such fees (b) extra personnel will be hired as a result of the necessity of collecting such fees (c) boats will be used in regard to such collections (d) additional boats will have to be purchased?
2.	What is the estimated annual cost including wages, use of boats and any other factors in collecting such fees from persons using the islands and what is the estimated annual amount of fees that will be collected?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) Three for a total of 1.2 man-years, (b) Three, (c) Two. (d) Two.
2. Estimated costs, $14,550; Estimated amount of annual fees collected, $52,000.


CONTAINER TRAFFIC
Mr. Forrestall: For each year 1968 to 1974 inclusive, for the Ports of Halifax, Saint John, Quebec and Montreal, what was (a) the container traffic handled in terms of (i) tonnage (ii) total tonnage by percentage (b) the total tonnage carried or handled in container traffic?


Jean Marchand: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows:
Container Traffic Handled at Eastern Canadian Ports (In Tons)
Port	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974Halifax	_	50,114	251,047	695,712	1,107,202	1,310,955	1,705,8577.3%	16.2%	25.6%	32.7%	30.0%	35.6%Saint John	-	50,000	89,811	138,346	342,673	491,026	450,8247.3%	5.8%	5.1%	10.1%	11.2%	9.4%Quebec	-	91,929	300,586	602,649	685,292	850,335	855,58713.4%	19.4%	22.2%	20.2%	19.4%	17.9%Montreal	120,792	496,028	907,132	1,276,122	1,248,833	1,717,981	1,774,008100.0%	72.1%	58.6%	47.0%	36.9%	39.3%	37.1%Total	102,792	688,071	641,444	2,712,829	3,384,000	4,370,297	4,786,260100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Source: N.H.B. Ottawa

May 21, 1975
Order Paper Questions
GENERAL CARGO TRAFFIC IN EASTERN PORTS	cargo traffic handled expressed (i) in tons (ii) as percentages of tons

Question No. 2,435-Mr. Forrestall:	(b) the total general carg0 traffic handled?
For each year 1968 to 1974 inclusive, for the Ports of Halifax, Saint Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport): The John, Quebec, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal, what was (a) the general National Harbours Board advises as follows:
General Cargo Traffic Handled at Eastern Canadian Ports (In Tons)
Port	1908	1909	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974Halifax	642,133	892,283	803,338	1,120,183	1,719,419	1,840,971	2,312,505Saint John	9.4%	11.5%	9.7%	13.8%	20.3%	21.5%	23.8%998,999	1,198,360	1,407,970	1,311,841	1,718,768	1,683,536	1,921,693Quebec	14.6%	15.5%	17.1%	14.6%	20.3%	19.6%	19.8%751,845	844,564	1,009,898	1,292,788	1,152,065	1,099,855	1,222,855Trois-Rivieres	11.0%	10.9%	12.3%	14.3%	13.6%	12.8%	12.5%484,031	511,297	498,414	395,594	329,951	267,G40	235,404Montreal	7.1%	6.6%	6.0%	4.4%	3.9%	3.2%	2.4%3,952,865	4,283,873	4,520,184	4,775,520	3,555,359	3,679,689	4,036,97557.9%	55.5%	54.9%	52.9%	41.9%	42.9%	41.5%Total	6,829,873	7,730,377	8,239,804	9,015,926	8,475,562	8,571,697	9,729,492100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%
Source: N.H.B. Ottawa


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Reynolds: 1 (a) Who is the President of CIDA (b) what is his salary (c) what were his expenses in 1974?
2.	Who are the Board of Directors of CIDA?
3.	How many divisions are in CIDA and what are their names?
4.	How many divisions are (a) unilingual English (b) unilingual French (c) bilingual?
5.	(a) How many employees, full and part-time, are in CIDA (b) what are their salaries (c) what were their expenses in 1974?
6.	What were CIDA's expenditures in 1974 and how much of this was (a) operating expenses (b) actual monies to companies or organizations?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise on a point of order, but this is in respect of a question answered yesterday, No. 2,030, which I placed on the order paper earlier this year. The question asked for information in respect of the names of lawyers acting in the constituency of Well-ington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo on behalf of CMHC. The return I received was signed by the minister for housing, but in the record I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs took responsibility for it.
My concern is that we have been told repeatedly in the House of Commons that there is no way a minister can be compelled during the oral question period to give adequate answers to question. It has been generally accepted that if questions are placed on the order paper it is incumbent upon the minister answering the questions to give honest and complete answers and, to the best of their ability, to give straightforward answers.
I cannot think of any more blatant example than the case of question 2,030 of a minister on several instances simply not addressing himself to the question I asked and where the answer he gave was very clearly misleading. I asked about the lawyers who were on the approved list for my constituency. He answered in respect of three counties but did not deal with the regional municipality of Waterloo at all.
There was no answer at all to question No. 2 respecting the names of lawyers now on the approved list with CMHC in my area, and no explanation was tendered as to why the answer was not given. There was no answer at all to part 2 of the first question asked, as to how much these lawyers were paid for work on behalf of the federal government; and once again there was no explanation tendered as to why the answer was not given. There was no answer in respect of question 4(a), as to whether government members were consulted about the appointment of lawyers in their constituencies. In fact, as this House knows, a copy of a letter sent by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to Liberal members of parliament, Liberal representatives and party workers of constituencies not held by government members has been made public and it shows there was input from those sources. The minister refused to answer that part of the question.


There was no answer in respect of question 4(b), as to whether there was an attempt to consult with me in respect of the appointment of lawyers to act on behalf of CMHC in my constituency; and if not, why not. Obviously, I could have answered that question. No attempt was made. I think it is fair that we should expect, when questions are placed on the order paper, to get frank and honest answers to them. It is very obvious in this case that the government might have been embarrassed by the answers if they were given, but I do not think embarrassment constitutes an excuse for not giving the House answers or for giving answers which can only be seen as misleading. I think the public of Canada and the members of this House are entitled to more frank behaviour on the part of ministers of the Crown.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


James Hugh 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last October 10, Bill C-20, an act respecting citizenship, was given first reading. Today, as I propose the second reading of this bill, I believe it would be helpful if my remarks were to place the question of citizenship in as fully developed a context as possible. Accordingly, I should like first to situate the proposed legislation within the Canadian context by looking at the history of naturalization and citizenship laws in this country, and then to examine some of the specific provisions of the proposed legislation.
In proposing the second reading of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1946, my predecessor, the Hon. Paul Martin, stated the case for establishing a distinct Canadian citizenship. He declared in part, and I should like to quote from his remarks of that day:
The bill arises from the fact of pride, common pride, in the achievements of our country, based upon the great exploits of our people.. For the national unity of Canada and for the future and greatness of this country, it is felt to be of the utmost importance that all of us, new Canadians or old, have a consciousness of a common purpose and common interests as Canadians; that all of us be able to say with pride and say with meaning: "I am a Canadian citizen".
In framing the Citizenship Act of 1947, the government was rightly concerned with the principle of citizenship that would be so defined and with the implications of that definition for Canadian society. With the principle of Canadian citizenship firmly established, we now focus attention on the process of acquiring citizenship. For our part, Mr. Speaker, one of the prime factors in determining the nature of this new citizenship legislation has been the government's concern for those individuals who will be most directly affected by it, namely, the potential citizens of this country.
Citizenship
The landed immigrant who makes the momentous decision to apply for Canadian citizenship testifies to his commitment to this country. He states he desires to join Canadian society formally so that he can participate fully in the Canadian community. In expressing the wish to adopt a new nationality, the potential citizen must place his case before the citizenship authorities. It seems only fair to that individual that he have a precise idea of the basis on which his case will be judged. For this reason, in drafting Bill C-20 we have made every attempt to make the whole process of becoming a citizen clear and straightforward.
The fundamental change in the proposed legislation is that the grant, retention, resumption or renunciation of citizenship is no longer a discretionary act on the part of the minister. Rather, it is made a right upon compliance with certain specific statutory requirements. This does not mean that anyone who knocks on our doors automatically has the right to become a citizen. It does mean that to obtain Canadian citizenship, an individual will go through a clear and straightforward process and, upon the fulfilment of certain conditions applicable to all persons, citizenship shall follow.
In its definition of citizenship as a qualified right, Bill C-20 represents the latest progressive step in the history of naturalization and citizenship laws in Canada. I believe it would be useful to review these steps very briefly so that the proposed legislation can be seen in the proper perspective.
Even before 1867, the various colonies which later formed the Dominion of Canada enacted legislation regarding the naturalization of aliens. A year after confederation, parliament passed legislation providing for one uniform law of naturalization. In 1881, the Canadian parliament passed its own Naturalization Act based upon the Imperial Naturalization Act of 1870 enacted by the United Kingdom parliament. However, the lack of uniformity in laws relating to citizenship and naturalization in the British Empire continued to cause difficulties. The Imperial Conference of 1911 agreed upon a number of basic principles for new imperial naturalization legislation. Among these, two in particular should be noted: one, imperial nationality should be worldwide and uniform; and two, there should be a five-year qualifying period.
In 1914, the legislation embodying the principles agreed upon was enacted by the United Kingdom parliament and by the Canadian parliament and subsequently by the legislatures of the other dominions. In Canada, the citizenship or nationality laws were determined by three statutes: the Canadian Immigration Act of 1910, designed to meet the needs of immigration and deportation; the Naturalization Act of 1914, adopted in order to meet the needs of imperial nationality; and the Canadian Nationals Act of 1921, enacted to meet the needs of participation in the international community, the League of Nations particularly.
It is interesting to note that not everyone who was a Canadian national under the Canadian Nationals Act was a Canadian under the Canadian Immigration Act and nowhere was provision made for Canadian citizenship. In

Citizenship
1930, these anomalies were brought forward and a report on nationality problems in Canada was presented to the secretary of state. A bill to revise and consolidate the laws of naturalization and citizenship was introduced in 1931 but was withdrawn before third reading.
Finally, in 1946, the secretary of state, the Hon. Paul Martin, introduced a new bill to revise and consolidate naturalization and citizenship laws and to introduce Canadian citizenship instead of British subject status or Canadian nationality. Proclaimed on January 21, 1947, the Canadian Citizenship Act, with some amendments, remains to this day. A progressive piece of legislation in its time, the present, much amended Citizenship Act has become complex and unwieldy, in certain respects illogical or not fully equitable, and somewhat out of tune with the times.
Mr. Speaker, the new citizenship bill represents a comprehensive revision of current citizenship legislation. I believe that on close examination it will be found to be an equitable, logical and liberal piece of legislation, reflecting the principles on which Canadian society has been founded. Let us turn to some of the specific changes proposed in the bill.
One aspect of the new bill which has been greeted favourably on all sides is its equal treatment of men and women. A few years ago, the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women pointed out five very important ways in which the present Citizenship Act discriminates against women. No one would claim that those who first framed the legislation set out to be deliberately discriminatory. However, in these five instances the legislation either makes special concessions to what the consciousness of the time termed the "weaker sex" or simply complies with then current international practice. The new citizenship bill corrects such discrimination.
Under the present act, only one year of residence is required by the alien wife of a Canadian husband wishing to become a citizen herself. On the other hand, the alien husband of a Canadian wife has to fulfill the full five-year requirement. Under the new bill, the wife or husband of a Canadian citizen must fulfill the standard residency requirement before obtaining citizenship. Secondly, under the present act, in most cases, only the father may apply on behalf of a minor child to obtain his citizenship. Under the new bill, either parent may make such an application. A similar arrangement exists for adoptive parents.
In the next two areas, some groups have suggested to us that retroactive legislation should be implemented to correct the discrimination. When the 1947 act was proclaimed, it did not restore the Canadian citizenship of Canadian women who had married aliens before 1947 and thus lost British subject status or Canadian nationality. Also, the present act does not permit the child born abroad of a Canadian mother and alien father to acquire his mother's citizenship, unless the birth is out of wedlock. In the first instance, it has been suggested that women who lost Canadian nationality through marriage before 1947 be proclaimed citizens retroactively. In the second case, it is suggested the children born abroad to Canadian mothers and alien fathers be retroactively proclaimed citizens. In our opinion, a retroactive citizenship law has unknown

consequences. It could be as derogatory of right in some cases as the original law.
Let us look at a few examples, Mr. Speaker. Let us suppose that a Canadian woman married an alien in 1945. Let us further suppose that she has been living abroad now for several years and that she has acquired or inherited land in her husband's country. It is very common for countries to have laws which forbid land ownership by non-citizens. It does not take much to imagine the consequences for that woman if she suddenly learned that, without reference to her wishes, she now had been made a Canadian citizen retroactively for all these years. While we have not made the new bill retroactive, I think that we have solved this difficulty fairly. The new bill specifies that any alienated married woman whose British subject status or Canadian nationality was not restored in 1947 may simply notify the secretary of state of her wish to acquire it. By her own decision, she may become a Canadian citizen as soon as she can establish her identity. We are giving to the women I have described the option of themselves setting in motion the process which will make them citizens if they so choose. The matter is in their hands.
In the other case I mentioned, that of the child born abroad, the new bill will permit derivation of citizenship from either parent. Here, too, we felt the suggestion of retroactivity posed many difficulties. Let us suppose the child is now 18 or 19. He has lived in a foreign country all his life, speaks the language of that country and is now, for example, a partner in his father's business. One can well imagine the legal ramifications for that individual if, through enactment of a law in his mother's country, he suddenly became an alien in his country of birth.
The new citizenship bill is also more equitable in the fact that children born abroad are now given rights to citizenship equal to those of children born in Canada. As I mentioned earlier, according to the proposed legislation, children who are born abroad will derive Canadian citizenship through either parent in or out of wedlock. Related requirements in the current legislation have also been corrected. Current legislation stipulates that citizenship can be lost unless the birth of a child outside Canada is registered within two years and the child becomes resident in Canada by age 24. The proposed legislation eliminates the registration requirement, thus making the right to citizenship indefeasible in the first generation born abroad.
As well, the new bill passes the rights to citizenship conditionally to the second generation. In effect, clause 7 of the new bill provides that such a person in the second generation can retain citizenship if by the age of 28-that is, ten years after majority-he or she makes application to obtain citizenship and either resides in Canada for at least one year preceding the date of application or establishes a substantial connection in Canada.
Another change to Canada's citizenship law which has met with favour is the provision that the age of application for citizenship be reduced from 21 to 18 years. At the time the law was framed, 21 was a logical age, reflecting the age of voting and the age of majority recognized in most law. However, a person may now vote at the age of 18 in Canada. It seems illogical that the person coming to Canada from abroad may not become a citizen until the
May 21, 1975

age of 21. This inconsistency has been set right in the new bill.
Le me deal now, Mr. Speaker, with two points about British subjects-points about which some confusion may exist. Under the present act, a British subject wishing to become a Canadian citizen has a much simpler road to follow than does an ordinary alien. He 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.
Since one of the main reasons for drafting a new citizenship bill is to give this country citizenship legislation that is firmly based on principles of fairness, the preferential treatment of one group of potential citizens over another is no longer acceptable. For this reason, the privileged status formerly granted to British subjects has not been maintained in the new bill. British subjects will now be treated like other applicants.
Another point with regard to British subjects is the removal from the new bill of the phrase which appears in the present act "a Canadian citizen is a British subject". There are those who think that the removal of this phrase will mean that Canadians travelling abroad will no longer have the protection of British legations. This is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Canadian citizens now receive the protection of the British legation where no Canadian mission exists because the Canadian government has made arrangements with the United Kingdom for such services to be provided to Canadian citizens. Such services in no way depend on the fact that Canadian citizens are termed British subjects under the present Citizenship Act.
The phrase "a Canadian citizen is a British subject" was, in reality, a transitional one. Before 1947, every resident of a country that was part of the British Empire, or latterly, of the British Commonwealth, was designated a British subject. The Citizenship Act of 1947 was the first law passed in any Commonwealth country to create a citizenship separate from that of British subject. The old phrase "British subject" was kept on, as I said, transitionally. Since then, distinct citizenship has been adopted by most Commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom itself.
What we are proposing now is to add a phrase to our citizenship law which recognize today's realities. In the new bill we have recognized the status of "citizen of the Commonwealth". In so doing, we acknowledge the ties of friendship that exist between Canada and all members of the British Commonwealth, not all of whom can any longer be properly designated by the term British subject. Furthermore, in recognizing this status the bill provides that the special status accorded to British subjects in any other Canadian legislation shall henceforth be applicable to all persons who are citizens of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Speaker, let us now look briefly at several measures which make Bill C-20 a more liberal piece of legislation than the current Citizenship Act. One such provision will
Citizenship
make it possible for Canadian citizens who have been residing abroad and have lost their citizenship in one way or another over time to resume Canadian citizenship with one year's residence after they have become landed in Canada. It did not seem fair that a person who had qualified as a Canadian citizen and had resided here for many years, and had for some reason lived abroad for a while, would have to go through a long process all over again on his return to Canada. Consequently, we have made a change. Such a person may normally resume his citizenship if he again becomes landed and resides here for one year.
A second measure which liberalizes the approach to citizenship is the removal of the requirement that an unsuccessful applicant must wait two years before a new application can be considered. A provision of the present act, that waiting period may well have had an intimidating effect on potential citizens and in certain cases it may even have created hardship. If a person is genuinely mistaken when he applies at a time when he presumes he has achieved qualification, let us say in knowledge or language proficiency, there is no justification for withholding a subsequent application for a minimum period of two years. Therefore, in the proposed legislation the restriction has been removed.
Another of these liberal provisions-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I don't like the word. It is not a very good presentation.


James Hugh Faulkner: Liberal with a small "1". Another of these liberal provisions is the reduction in the waiting period from five years to three. Rather surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, this is a change which has caused some discussion. We have received some letters claiming that people cannot acquire a genuine understanding of this country in anything less than five years. We have received others claiming that all immigrants are automatically going to become citizens after three years. Of course, neither of these contentions is true. On the contrary, some immigrants may want to wait 25 or even 30 years before acquiring citizenship. But for the many immigrants who do want to apply for citizenship as soon as their residency requirement has been fulfilled, five years seems an inordinately long time to wait.
Looking at the minimum waiting period, we felt that it was arbitrary and unfair to penalize those who feel themselves ready to apply before a five-year term is up. After all, we live in a society where highly sophisticated systems of telecommunications not only put us instantaneously in touch with events across the country but link us to events in the far corners of the earth and even beyond. The fact that such a wealth of information is so readily available to every potential citizen is a cogent argument for the reduction of the waiting period.
Another change which is proposed in the bill is the removal of the requirement that an applicant be "of good character".


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is that a liberal provision?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am most anxious that this change should not lead to any misunderstanding. A great

May 21, 1975
Citizenship
deal of thought has gone into the proposal and I would now like to outline our reasoning. I said a little earlier that the fundamental change in the bill is that citizenship is made a right upon compliance with certain specific statutory requirements. If the seemingly simple notion of good character were to be retained, therefore, it would have to be somehow rendered into a measurable requirement. But that exercise is not quite as simple as determining a person's age or requiring a look at a birth certificate or immigration landing date, or even verifying the applicant's knowledge of Canada or of one of its official languages. Even these latter two can be tested uniformly. Language and knowledge tests abound in schools and universities and can be used as models. But character is not so easy; it is more nebulous; more likely to be left to arbitrary appreciation.
We have examined the idea of leaving the task, as at present, to our citizenship judges and letting them determine whether an applicant is of "good character". The problem there is that the phrase itself is open to so vast a range of interpretation as to make it no more than a subjective evaluation on the part of the citizenship judge, and thus to render its application as a standard requirement open to serious controversy. I am sure that if I ask each hon. member individually and privately how he or she would define the term "good character", I will get as many answers as there are individuals in he House. While citizenship judges may have interpreted the phrase with responsibility and good sense, nevertheless the fact remains that the application of the requirement has necessarily been an arbitrary thing, especially with regard to any distinction between public and private behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, leaving aside our technical problems for the moment, I ask the House to consider why we should try to test character in such a manner. After all, what is citizenship? It is the act of participating in a political system. Participation in Canada's economic and social systems are granted by residency, by simply being here legally. Very roughly stated, 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 prerequisite. It also allows one to enjoy an almost indefinable sense of belonging to, contributing to and participating in Canada. The conferring of citizenship is an enabling gesture on the part of the government to lift all barriers which stand in the way of the full political participation of an individual.
Citizenship is not a reward for good behaviour. It is not a prize to be awarded only to the more meritorious. The native born do all the things I listed a moment ago without any test of character. I have reached the conclusion that the broad character requirement in the present act is indefinable, unrealistic and unfair. As practised in the past and in any known design, it punishes, sometimes wrongfully, human behaviour not punishable by law. For these reasons, in Bill C-20 we have turned to the law. Instead of the nebulous phrase "good character", we have set down specific criteria which can be invoked without fear of abuse.
Under the new bill, certain sections of the Criminal Code and the Narcotics Control Act will provide these

necessary guidelines. About these guidelines there can be no dispute. After all, a person either has done certain things or he has not; he is certain things or he is not. The law deals with law-breakers, native and foreign-born. The removal of the words "good character" is an important step in the direction away from arbitrary discretion. It is a step which is totally in keeping with the basic change of the new citizenship bill which redefines citizenship as a qualified right where certain stated conditions are satisfied.
Under present Canadian law, citizenship is, as I said, a grant made at the discretion of the minister. I think this discretion has been fairly administered over the years. In principle, though, if not in practice, such an approval allows for the imposition of conditions which are not stated in law. It permits the possibility of arbitrary exercise of authority without public or legislative sanction. The new citizenship bill corrects this situation. In the new bill, however, section 18 of the proposed legislation does grant discretion to the governor in council to refuse to grant citizenship or resumption of citizenship, or to recognize the renunciation of citizenship if it would be prejudicial to the security of Canada or contrary to public order in Canada. This, I believe, provides adequate and proper exceptional intervention in extreme cases.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: No possibility of arbitrariness there.


James Hugh Faulkner: The new bill also gives the minister and the cabinet certain positive discretionary powers. This means that the minister and the cabinet can forgive certain qualifications-


An hon. Member:: That's right.


James Hugh Faulkner: I wish the hon. member would pay some attention. This also means that the minister and the cabinet can reward people for special services to Canada and can relieve cases of particular hardship. I believe the House will agree that these provisions are necessary for dealing fairly with cases which may call for a humanitarian or generous decision. I am sure, as this bill goes to committee for study-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not if we can help it.


James Hugh Faulkner: I hope that is not the official position of the official opposition, but an insensitive reaction.


An hon. Member:: You will find out.


James Hugh Faulkner: I hope that when it does go to committee for study, many groups and individuals will follow with interest the progress of this legislation and the commentary it will no doubt provoke. That Bill C-20 will receive such public commentary from a wide cross-section of the population is hardly surprising, for what we are discussing is an issue which touches every Canadian.
It is the hope of the government that in removing the many inconsistencies and barriers existing under current legislation, the new bill will encourage potential citizens to acquire Canadian citizenship. It is with this hope in mind that I invite hon. members to lend their support to the proposed citizenship legislation and so join with the government in reaching out to potential citizens of

Canada to issue, on behalf of the Canadian community, a gentle invitation to citizenship.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, every once in a while the purpose of a bill causes us to stand back and look at ourselves as a people. As to what citizenship really means, people will of course have different perceptions because of their differing experiences in Canada. The other day there was a seminar on, of all subjects, the governability of democracy. An assessment made by some of those who participated was that part of the problem about democracy and the fact that the question would even be raised was that some of the essential components are missing; that is, what I call a sense of purpose, a public philosophy, and if I can add one of my own, a sense of what citizenship entails. Indeed it is, as the minister said, a matter of right, with qualifications, by the statute but of course there are also complementary privileges and responsibilities.
I suppose I have the same difficulty speaking on an issue like this as most Canadians. Up to now we have been somewhat uncomfortable about defining what we mean by patriotism. To me, citizenship is precious. It is something which must be nurtured, valued and never cheapened. I have been reflecting, as I look at this bill, on some of the service rendered to Canada by our colleague, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Of course history will have many things to say about this, but for my part as a Progressive Conservative it seems that the contribution the right hon. gentleman made to parliament and to the democratic process was that he substantially broadened the base of the party of which I have the privilege of being part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: He made this party, the party I am speaking for today in this debate, more representative. Therefore, the corollary is that he improved the democratic process and broadened our citizenship. I remember the days of the debate on the Bill of Rights. Those of us who were brought up in the common law experience heard it repeated many times by our legal brethren that of course there was no need for a statute to embody these rights; we had always enjoyed them. We who were used to the British tradition had always enjoyed them, and the legislative enactment was merely puffery or surplus. Of course, the right hon. gentleman and the government of the day knew that for many Canadians who were not brought up in this tradition it was vital to have a code of rights, something for them to look to. So I want to say, as we deal with the broad principle of this bill, that citizenship and the whole matter of how we respond to it, of course, has different perceptions and different meanings depending upon our backgrounds.
The minister was good enough to say that he could not stay for my speech because of another engagement, but I have several things to say about the bill. I think that citizenship and immigration are linked. Whether they are linked now by statute or not, they are in the minds of most Canadians. After all, not so very long ago citizenship and immigration were the responsibility of one minister. It seems to me an anomalous situation that we should be debating Bill C-20 its whole purpose being citizenship, at
Citizenship
the very time a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons is going across the country gathering information on what the public feels about our immigration policy.
I have spoken to many of my colleagues who have had the privilege of being on this committee and hearing some of the representations, and in most cases no differentiation is made between citizenship and immigration. I suggest that it is both insensitive and bordering on contempt for the special joint committee to be debating this bill at the very moment the committee makes its progress across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I added in my notes that both these adjectives are not a rare characteristic of this government.
There are a couple of other things that I want to say, Mr. Speaker. One is that I think the provisions for allowing time in Canada-if one is in Canada illegally-to count is not helpful or, to use the minister's adjective, not a good liberal principle, with a small "1". Secondly, I think some of the comments made when the bill was introduced many months ago, that the whole citizenship court process may be speeded up can, if not carefully watched by the minister and his department, cheapen the granting of that very right and could be in danger of making the whole process like that of a sausage factory. None of us wishes this, and I want to enter a very special caveat-that whatever should be the future of this bill, one result should not be a sort of night court routine proceedings where people run up, sign the book and go on their way. Citizenship is precious, and cannot, and should not, be cheapened. It should transfuse our country and renew our country; I am certain that citizenship has immeasurably strengthened our country.
The minister has mentioned the discretion that he will enjoy and that cabinet will enjoy. I say to him with great respect that this is going to result in endless trouble for him. I will not count myself out, if I should be here, as one of those members who would wish to put pressure on the minister to exercise discretion. I have watched many ministers of citizenship during my 13 years in this House, and I think that at times the pressure upon them must have been intolerable because of this discretion. As a somewhat old-fashioned lawyer member of parliament, I would rather have jurisprudence than discretion governing the grant of citizenship. I prefer jurisprudence and an appeal procedure to a rather loosely-drawn system of discretion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Even liberal.	-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Even liberal, as my leader says. As I mentioned earlier, our views on citizenship will differ. Our search for it has taken many forms in our literature. By a curious paradox, one of the most eloquent searches is in a book by a Canadian, Frederick Philip Grove, who I believe used to be at the University of Brandon. He wrote a book called "In Search of America" at a time when nationalism was not as rampant as it is at the present time. He reminded us that we should not spend so much time searching for our country because, after all, it is all about us. It is really the sightless or those who do not have
29561	35

May 21, 1975
Citizenship
any perspective of this country and what citizenship means who spend so much time searching for Canada. That is just a little extra, Mr. Speaker. I suppose when I am teaching Canadian literature I can use Frederick Philip Grove and that example, but I wanted to share it with the House this afternoon.
Canada, of course, is not an exclusive London Club type of place. The words qualifying citizenship, in my humble opinion, be they ethnic, be they naturalized or not, any word that qualifies our feelings for our brothers and sisters who are citizens is demeaning. After all, this inheritance is shared. As John Kennedy said about America once, this is a land of immigrants. I had an opportunity to visit the north and learn of the settlement of the north by the movement of the Innuit people across the Bering Sea. The same applies, of course, to the Indian people. I realize that none of us can claim any special privileges about citizenship because all of us at one time or another came here from somewhere else.
An editorial which appeared in the Windsor Star on October 17, 1974, had two sentences which I think are valid and relevant to this debate. The editorial said:
Being a Canadian has become much more a source of pride in the past few years, particularly by comparison with other countries. We are losing our national diffidence, and it is only proper that the formalities of citizenship keep pace with the intangibles of pride and confidence.
I like that, Mr. Speaker, and I want to relate it to my hope that the granting of citizenship by our courts will continue to be a dignified and very special occasion for both the judge granting the privilege and the new citizen receiving it. As a member of parliament, I have witnessed this many times in the past. An editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail on June 4, 1974, said:
It takes courage to pull up stakes, move perhaps half way around the world, and make a fresh start in an unfamiliar country. It is a gutsy kind of person who is ready to take on the daily challenge of coping with a new language, new laws and new customs for the sake of a better life for his family and himself. For Canada immigration has been more than just a source of population, it has been a supplier of a very special kind of people, generously endowed with initiative, boldness, creativity and the capacity to respond to challenge.
I hope this House feels that the comment by the Globe and Mail is an appropriate one to make as we discuss what I suggested earlier was an interlocking of the whole issue of immigration and citizenship. They are inextricably bound. As I said earlier, it is too bad that the bill is put forward now. It has been on the order paper since last October and is brought up now at the very moment the special joint committee is travelling across the country.
The bill is not all bad, however; there are some pluses. I take particular satisfaction in the fact that at last our men and women are treated equally. Women who lost citizenship by marrying foreign nationals under pre-1947 law can now recover their citizenship automatically. Children born abroad can derive citizenship in or out of marriage. This, of course, was the subject of one of the many recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. If I can be modest, it has been the subject matter of a private member's bill which I introduced in the last parliament. I am glad the government has responded. I think the government could have responded with a simple and amended bill-this remark applies to several other

clauses-by virtue of which this and other anomalies could have been cleared up long ago.
The minister said that the old discrimination as between British subjects and immigrants from outside the Commonwealth is to be erased. He has given us an interpretation of the three-year formula. Presumably the qualifying time for the British is to be increased, and the five-year qualifying period for others-I suggest that the unpleasant word "others" should not occur in our present consideration-is to be decreased. These disparate qualifications are to be merged in the three-year term.
Many of my colleagues have raised in caucus, if I may let you in on a big secret, and in public discussion the reduction from 21 to 18 of the age for individual applications for citizenship. I suggest that the government has been very laggardly indeed about introducing this obvious provision. The provinces have long since reduced the age of majority and the Canada Elections Act did so several years ago. I think it is important for mature, adult people to be given the opportunity to make individual applications. The government's long delay in coming to grips with this problem has meant that the careers of many young men and women have been inhibited. They have not been able to engage in some of the careers enunciated by the minister in his speech.
I make the point that we all were immigrants once. I think it pertinent to quote part of a monthly pamphlet put out by the Royal Bank of Canada. I quote from the one of November, 1973. It says in part:
By becoming a Canadian citizen a person shows that he is no longer satisfied to be merely a guest in the house where he lives but that he has, in fact, become one of the family.
In primitive times, when a person sought to live in another group than his own, ceremonial rites of adoption were necessary. These rites were supposed to make the incoming individual a blood member of the new group.
Citizenship implies acceptance of a code of behaviour, but that is only the starting point. It also gives one a set of anticipations and expectations.
I, for one, hope that the anticipations and expectations of those who come to this country will always be generously met. I hope that is how those will feel who have come to Canada and wish to adopt this as their own country. Nothing in recent Canadian history has troubled me more than recent manifestations of evil, of racist statements scrawled by cowards on walls of buildings, usually at night because the perpetrators of such crimes are not brave enough to do it in daylight. This subject will be considered by the special committee. I, personally, hope that this whole aspect, this wound on the fabric of Canada, will not be allowed to fester and that our federal and provincial governments will meet it head on.
I wish to read another passage into the record. It is by John Stuart Mill. This quotation is also contained in the monthly letter of the Royal Bank, that most farsighted Nova Scotia bank which is Halifax-based. It reads in part:
John Stuart Mill, philosopher and economist, wrote in his essay on liberty: "The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."
May 21, 1975

I assume that we are anxious to help others obtain it, "it" being citizenship. The House is no doubt anxious to hear from my colleagues who will want to participate in this debate. We will support the bill going to committee. My colleagues wish to say some things about the bill during the present stage of debate. They will make other suggestions to improve the bill when it is before the committee. Mr. Speaker, we will support Bill C-20 moving to Committee.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: You are the only NDP member present.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I see how crowded the benches are for this afternoon's important debate. On behalf of the NDP, I welcome Bill C-20, the new citizenship bill, for it removes many of the inequities and anomalies in existing citizenship legislation. This bill changes the whole situation. Previously, citizenship was a privilege, granted at the discretion of the minister. By virtue of this bill, citizenship becomes a right, available after fulfilment of specified conditions.
We entertain serious reservations about clause 33 which deals with non-citizen ownership of land. We shall explore this matter further in committee and ask the minister to clarify the provision, as it may conflict with provincial government legislation which has been passed in an attempt to restrict foreign ownership of provincial land. I shall discuss this in greater detail later.
I should be lacking in manners if I did not mention and pay tribute to a number of hon. members of this House, especially of my party, who have proposed a series of private members' bills designed to improve the old citizenship legislation which came into force in 1947 and has been amended 61 times. I refer to Bill C-260, standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the aim of which is to allow a child born outside Canada the right to claim Canadian citizenship through the mother. I am happy to note that this idea has been incorporated in Bill C-20.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also proposed another private member's bill, C-317, the aim of which is to give the alien husband of a Canadian wife the same privileges as are given to an alien wife in the application for Canadian citizenship. I am happy to note that the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) in Bill C-283, for reducing the minimum residence requirement from five to three years, has been adopted. The proposal put forward by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre in his private member's public bill, C-319, has not been totally incorporated in Bill C-20. I urge the minister to consider the purpose of the hon. member's bill. The explanatory note reads in part:
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act to provide that persons residing in Canada by virtue of a minister's permit-
The reference there is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
-may have such time of residence counted for purposes of qualifying as time of permanent residence for purposes of the act.
Citizenship
I see in Bill C-20 that the only credit given for people in those circumstances would be that each day in Canada would count as a half day toward fulfilling the residence requirement. I think a full-day provision is quite logical because many of the people here under minister's permits are in Canada under special circumstances. I think that time should be counted for them. As I said, I am happy to see that the ideas behind private members' bills are being incorporated in this new citizenship bill.
The minister briefly pointed out some of the changes in the legislation, changes that many members on all sides of the House have been urging on the government to bring about a greater degree of fairness in the Citizenship Act. We now know, of course, that the period of residence requirement to obtain citizenship will be reduce from five years to three. The age of majority is now reduced from 21 years to 18, and men and women will be treated equally. All applicants for Canadian citizenship will be required to meet the three years' residence qualification without regard to any marital connection with a citizen. Children born abroad will now derive citizenship from either parent. Either parent will be able to apply for citizenship on behalf of a minor child. Women who lost their Canadian citizenship through marriage to an alien prior to 1947 will be able to recover it automatically upon notice to the minister.
Under the new act, British subjects will no longer be exempt from the requirement to be examined by a citizenship judge or to attend a ceremony to take the oath of allegiance. I think those are measures that are quite fair and long overdue, especially the points that end the discrimination against women. That would make a former colleague of mine, Mrs. Grace Maclnnis, very happy. When she was a member of this House, year after year she vigorously urged that discrimination against women in the Citizenship Act be ended.
I am also happy to see that we now have recognized citizenship judges by this bill. There are presently 21 such judges in Canada. Also, the bill now incorporates the right of appeal for an applicant against any decision granted by a citizenship judge. In the past we had the problem of a citizenship judge denying citizenship and the applicant having no right of appeal. The concept of appeal is one that is of long-standing in our democracy and legal system. I am happy to see that it is now restored in the aspects of granting of citizenship.
In one sense, this is a motherhood bill. It is something that all members can agree on-the need to reform and update our Citizenship Act. There is very little to be critical about. However, there is one clause that does concern me. I mentioned this at the outset. I refer to clause 33 of the bill. It applies to property, non-Canadian ownership of Canadian property, especially Canadian land. We have a concern on the part of the provinces, especially Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and indeed my own province of Ontario, about the degree of foreign ownership of provincial land. Because the federal government has failed to take any real initiative in this area, the provinces, which under the constitution have authority to regulate property, have been taking initiatives and passing bills to restrict non-resident, non-Canadian ownership
29S61-3SV2

May 21, 1975
Citizenship
of land. However, when we look at clause 33 we find the following:
33(1) 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 only change in clause 33 in the old act is to change the word "aliens" to "persons not citizens". I am commenting on this clause because it has come to my attention that there have been meetings between federal and provincial officials that were set up after the first ministers' conference to study foreign ownership of land in Canada. In a confidential report it was recommended that the provinces be given the power to deal with non-resident ownership of land. I understand that a number of provinces have written to the federal government requesting that they be given this power, and the federal government has indicated that it is not prepared to move on the problem.
We have in clause 33, the property and citizenship clause, the same intent as the old act, allowing non-citizens to hold land unless that land has been set aside for Canadian citizens only under the terms of an act of the federal parliament. It is on this matter that I want to get clarification from the minister in committee. If the provinces are going to be thwarted in their attempt to regain control of provincial lands from foreign owners or to curtail foreigners from buying up recreational beaches and other prime land, and we have this clause 33, it could lead to very interesting legal interpretations and court cases by non-residents challenging provincial law. There is much danger in this clause, if it is what I think. That is why I want clarification on it from the minister in committee. Other than clause 33 and some of the provisions about qualifications for time and what can be counted as time of residence in Canada in order to qualify for the three-year period for citizenship, we think the bill is basically sound and worthy of support.
It has often been said that a nation can be defined as a group of people who have done great things together in the past and intend to do great things together in the future. No small part of that sense of nationhood, that sense of identity, unity, co-operation and accomplishment is the sense of citizenship. Citizenship gives a person a sense of belonging and participation, especially in regard to the most fundamental democratic right, that of voting. It also gives citizens a sense of obligation-to do their best to promote the well-being of their fellow citizens and their country.
For far too long we have had an identity crisis in Canada. We are not quite sure what it is to say, "I am a Canadian." Indeed, in the past many of the forms we have had to fill out in various areas of life have labelled us as British subjects or have said that our national origin had to be something other than Canadian. As we move toward this new Citizenship Act and the new concept of citizenship that is within it, we will find that there will result a greater realization of Canadian identity.

For anyone who wants to experience what it means to be a Canadian, they should visit a citizenship court and watch the ceremony whereby new Canadians are finally recognized as citizens. I cannot think of a more impressive and moving ceremony than watching people from all lands throughout the world who qualify as Canadians standing to take the oath of allegiance and receiving their certificate as full fledged citizens of Canada. It is a most impressive sight, one I have witnessed on many occasions, and I commend it to all native-born Canadians.
In conclusion, we welcome Bill C-20 for its reform aspects. Except for clause 33, we think it is a good bill and we will promote its speedy passage through this parliament.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I was highly interested by the minister's presentation, and the amendments proposed in Bill C-20. Amendments bringing the Act into line with this country's image are long overdue. The minister briefly outlined the history of our citizenship law, starting from the old Naturalization Act dating back to 1881. In 1914, Parliament passed the first Canadian Citizenship Act proper.
In 1946 came the new act as we now know it. It dropped the words "British Dominion". Although improved, the 1946 Canadian Citizenship Act was much more representative that the former one, although it still included a number of discrepancies that could no longer remain in 1975. The minister recognizes that privileges are no longer defendable, and we are most satisfied. From now on, Canadian citizenship will be a right for every one wishing to settle or remain in Canada. With the voting of this new Act, Canada will become more adult, more humane and more civilized.
What I was most interested in was the list the Minister gave us of amendments proposed in the bill. He said the bill introduces equality of treatment for women. I am convinced the Canadian people as a whole will thank the Minister for finally dropping such discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, it would be unworthy of the Canadian people if our immigration laws maintained different status for women.
As a second amendment, the Minister referred to the wife's residence where the husband is a Canadian citizen. The wife coming back to Canada would have only one year to wait before obtaining the right to citizenship.
The greatest change brought about by the Minister is with regard to minors, enabling the parent to speak on behalf of his or her minor child. This is quite logical. Equality of status having been declared between man and woman, it was quite normal for minors that they also have the same privilege, having reached the age of 18.
A few years ago, the minimum voting age was lowered to 18 and, in my opinion, this amendment is quite logical. It is quite normal to want to give the status of major to an 18-year-old child, whereas he was recognized as such only when older under former legislation.
With regard to children born in a foreign country, in order for them to become Canadian citizens, be they born in or out of wedlock, it will always be the parent who is
May 21, 1975

tutor of the child who will be responsible for him and who may ask for him to become a citizen. The same would apply for a Canadian who would have lost his Canadian citizenship outside of Canada and who would come back to Canada.
I have had such cases in the past and came to realize that it is very difficult for a Canadian to regain his Canadian citizenship.
With these amendments and those which I have noted as the Minister spoke as well as those contained in the legislation, this bill is quite acceptable, at least as far as our party is concerned, as well as for all other parties in the House, since that bill was long overdue.
With regard to British subjects, I am happy that the minister should now tell us that the privileges they formerly enjoyed upon arriving in Canada will no longer exist. In the future, they will be treated like all other citizens coming from' France, Portugal or elsewhere.
One thing worries me, however. A few years ago, when I sat on the immigration committee, I became aware of the fact that throughout those years, a British subject could live and do business in Canada.
I even knew some who had been in Canada for 20 or 25 years without ever having obtained the right to Canadian citizenship. I have not read the bill clause by clause, but I wonder whether that type of case will still exist, because I fail to understand why a British immigrant who came to Canada to settle down, to live permanently should, under the terms of the old legislation, be free to become a Canadian citizen or remain a British subject. I hope that clause in the new bill will do away with that old privilege.
Finally, I thank the minister once more for having introduced Bill C-20. I trust that when it comes up for study in committee if indicated, it will be amended to make it Canada's very own so that we can say: At long last, we have an act that corresponds to the Canadian spirit. I am confident that all Canadian citizens, present and future, will be happy to be governed by this new Canadian Citizenship Act.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 has been on the order paper for a number of months, and in rising to speak on it now I should like to point out very clearly that it does contain some good points which I will mention briefly. However, as in any legislation which contains negative points, we should also put those forward. I think it is incumbent on members of the opposition to bring those points forward in order that the debate can range over all parts of the bill and everything the bill encompasses can be brought to the public awareness, particularly the implications of the legislation.
There are several positive points in the bill to which reference has been made by most speakers. This is another case of the government presenting an omnibus bill, this one on citizenship, in order to get around other less palatable positions, therefore advancing the argument the government has used before, that if we are against certain parts or clauses, we must be against the whole thing and
Citizenship
we are either reactionary, antediluvian or anti-something else-all of which I, personally, cannot accept.
The bill does contain certain positive points; for instance, equal treatment to men and women. For example, if an alien wife or a husband of a Canadian citizen wants to gain citizenship, he or she will be subject to the same waiting time. A father or a mother can apply to have a child registered as a Canadian citizen; the derivation of citizenship can come from either parent. Also, the reduction in the eligibility age for citizenship from 21 to 18 is a positive step, to my mind. I believe this change should have been brought in long before we saw Bill 20.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: It should have been brought in under the elections act.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is right, it should have been changed in the elections act. That is the proper place; not the Citizenship Act. This is really doing it after the fact. Having stressed the positive points, I should like to point out a number of things in this bill which do not have my support. Perhaps this big "if" should be put in the middle of my speech because these negative aspects in this omnibus type bill clearly weaken the bill itself. First of all, we should consider the minister who has brought this bill before the House. In my opinion, this minister has a tremendous record of failure. We must also consider the attitude he brings to legislation and his work in the House, which I cannot accept.
Let us look at some of his responsibilities. He brought in the OFY program, which has turned out to be an absolute disaster. This program was taken from his responsibility and placed under the direction of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. What has happened with the CBC and the type of stuff that has been appearing on that network as a result of a so-called humanistic philosophy? In my opinion, the minister's attitude in this regard is simply eroding the principles on which our society is based, yet when you ask questions of the minister or his appointees in the CBC you do not get answers. We are faced with silence or this minister and his appointees say that with our freedom of speech in this democracy we should not discuss such things. I am all for freedom of expression, but when the government uses the taxpayers' money I think it should be responsible for the views it projects.
The minister has been criticized almost as much by members on his own side of the House as those on this side in respect of the Time and Readers' Digest issue. The minister likes to use the word liberal with a small "1", but let me suggest that we can use the word with a capital "L" in reference to those who are sticking the knife in his back.
What happened to the immigration resettlement program? Earlier it was under the direction of the Secretary of State. That program has also been taken away from this minister. I suggest that was because he was not doing a good job. Yesterday, at the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, we asked the minister why this program had been put into his department and he replied very clearly that it was in a mess and something had to be done, so he had to take it over. That is the record of this

Citizenship
minister of citizenship. Now he is trying to lecture us on all the wonderful things he is going to do.
It is my belief that the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) together are putting parts of this bill before Canadian society as another step toward eroding some of the principles that are directly related to many of the people in this country. I say that for a number of reasons which I will bring out in due course.
Immigration and citizenship are tied closely together; you cannot divorce one from the other. The joint committee studying the green paper on immigration has already held hearings in Quebec. A number of witnesses at those hearings, when speaking on various parts of the green paper, stressed the regulations governing citizenship and suggested that immigration and citizenship were inextricably linked. We do not have to go back many years to find that citizenship and immigration were under one department. The best thing that could happen would be for this minister to lose his entire responsibility, with citizenship being brought back to a department along with immigration where it rightfully belongs.
The committee that is now studying immigration will be going to Sudbury tomorrow and British Columbia next week. This government has stated on many occasions it is interested in having a public debate on this paper. It says it wants the opinion of Canadians regarding immigration. We in the opposition accept this idea. We have all seen articles in the newspapers stating that the government has already enunciated certain policies very clearly and that the cabinet has made certain decisions. The minister has said to the committee that this is not the case. Knowing he is a gentleman, I accept his explanation.
Now we have a bill before us which affects a large part of the discussions that are to take place in a public debate. I simply cannot understand why at this stage the government would bring forward this legislation. As far back as February 13, as recorded at page 3187 of Hansard, I asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) whether they would hold off Bill C-20 until such time as the public debate on immigration was ended. There is a relatively short time period; by July 31 we are to bring in a report. That is approximately 2Vz months from now.
What is the rush now? If the government is sincere in wanting an official debate, surely it could wait until July 31 when the committee, with members from all parties, comes in with a recommendation or report regarding citizenship requirements. Surely that is a legitimate request. Back on February 13 I asked that question of the President of the Privy Council and in his answer he said in part:
I think it would be very useful to have a discussion going on in the House at the same time as the debate is going on regarding immigration, because-and here I agree with the hon. member-they are closely related and I think it would help to offset any idea that our immigration policy is directed against any particular group.
I plead with the government that, after the initial debate in which we are now engaged in this House, they hold off on this bill and give it a six months' hoist until such time as it has the input of Canadians that has been asked for in the green paper. In the matter of the reduc-

tion from five years to three years, the minister made much about the fact that five years is arbitrary. It is. But so is three years arbitrary.
Let us look at the qualifications of other countries, because it is my concept that citizenship is a privilege that a sovereign country gives to an individual who has come to that country, just as it is in respect of immigrants who come to this country such as my people and other people who are so-called ethnics-I do not like that term, but I shall use it-who feel that Canada gives them a new home and therefore they want to make a contribution. They do make a contribution and are loyal citizens of Canada, but now they are asking what is happening to this country.
There are certain principles involved. Let us look at the facts in respect of other countries. The residency qualification in the United States is five years. In Britain it is five years. In France it is five years. Belgium has two types of residency requirement. The first is that one can obtain citizenship in three years if one has lived in Belgium before age 14, as a minor; but then it is six years after age 14. What rights does one have? This only gives one working and living privileges; that is all.
Then there is another qualification, that if you want full citizenship rights in Belgium you must have lived there for ten years and must be over age 25. One can then vote in Belgium. This is arbitrary, Mr. Speaker. What about West Germany? Citizenship there is determined by the province in which one resides, but the shortest period of time in which one can obtain citizenship is five years. In other cases the period can be as long as ten years. What about Switzerland? The period there is 12 years and the last six must be consecutive. What about Sweden? The law in Sweden states that the period is seven years but that one can apply after three or four years' residency and then the individual case is judged on its merits.
In Australia, the period is three years. In New Zealand, citizenship is at the discretion of the minister of internal affairs. All cases are judged on their merits. For non-British subjects generally the period is five years, and there is a preference for British subjects. When you get to places like Yugoslavia, the U.S.S.R. and some other iron curtain countries, you can apply for citizenship after you arrive in the country but to get there and obtain a visa is not very easy.
We must remember that Canada is a country which has welcomed immigrants. Last year there were 218,000. There is one country in Europe which already has a one-year residency requirement, The Netherlands; but if one checks the situation and looks at the number of immigrants into that country you find that there is hardly any immigration there. So I wonder at this point whether the question is academic. When the minister appears before this House and says that five years is arbitrary, I say that three years is every bit as arbitrary.


An hon. Member:: What is the answer?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The answer is that citizenship is worth something and is a privilege that is bestowed on us by a sovereign country. Almost all of us in this country were immigrants at one time and had to go through a five-year period, and if you talk to many of these people they will tell you that they think the five-year period is not a
May 21, 1975

hardship at all. They ask, why the change? They wonder whether it is simply a compromise in respect of the law concerning British subjects or what is the reason for the government changing the five-year period to three years.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
Citizenship


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order. ed3102

Thursday, May 22, 1975