1975-12-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from a telex directive sent by the director of immigration for the Ontario region to all officers in charge of Canada immigration centres and subsequently circulated under date of October 15, 1975 by E. J. Fanning of the Canada Immigration Centre in Toronto to immigration supervisors. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration make a statement concerning recent instructions under which immigration officers at Canada immigration centres now operate, which state that immediate landed immigrant status is to be granted any person where such is ordered by the Immigration Appeal Board regardless of whether immigration officials have received necessary medical examination reports, or whether immigration officials have completed investigations required regarding criminal or subversive backgrounds which would be harmful to national security, and further that the minister forthwith assure the House that steps will be taken to prevent the Immigration Appeal Board from hearing future cases without availability of all evidence at the time, that the minister guarantee immediate legislative steps will be taken to prevent continuance of a situation whereby criminals, subversives and other undesirables can receive landed immigrant status by Immigration Appeal Board decisions, and finally that the minister make public the number of such individuals to date receiving landed immigrant status in this way.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
I should like to ask the minister whether the government is still asking the provinces to enter into an agreement with the Government of Canada for a full three or three and a quarter years, the full term of the government's anti-inflationary program, or whether the government has indicated that it is prepared to accept a shorter commitment from the provinces. I am thinking particularly of those provinces deciding to let the federal government administer the plan with regard to their own civil servants, and so forth.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the public sector, which is the part which is being discussed with the provinces, we discussed at the most recent meeting the notion of entering in for a period shorter than the full period of the program with the expectation that there would be a review and a renewal at the end of that shorter period.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-RECONCILIATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF SHORTER COMMITMENT FROM PROVINCES WITH LONGER PROGRAM OF GOVERNMENT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: that is the appropriate technique with respect to the provinces, I wonder why the minister could not have agreed to it with respect to the program generally, as we suggested. However, I should like to ask the minister how he reconciles accepting the shorter commitment with the provinces-I heard the term a year and a half mentioned-with the government's whole concept of a program of gradually phasing down inflation over a period of three or three and a quarter years.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Our
distinct preference was to phase inflation down more slowly over the three year period rather than have a very sharp reduction, which would bring about certain risks in the way of unemployment. Our distinct preference is to go on that slower incline. On the other hand, we have recognized that the provinces are sovereign governments in Canada, and that the best means of achieving this is with their agreement. We hoped to get their agreement to the longer period. If their agreement can only be obtained by their entering into an initially shorter period with the hope of renewal, that is the second best, but that is still a preferable solution to having no provincial participation in the public sector at all.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSITION OF QUEBEC ON ACCEPTANCE OF GUIDELINES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: It
may very well be, then, that if the federal government decides to continue beyond the year and a half to which the provinces are committed, the program may be very
29956-67V2

December 8, 1975
Oral Questions
unequal in fact, with some provinces in and some out. I should like to ask the minister whether he is now able to give us any firm statement about the plans of the one province which intends to administer the program itself in its own area of jurisdiction. Has the Government of Canada received any commitment from that province that it will follow the federal guidelines rather than its own guidelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In
general terms, the hope and the expectation is that the federal guidelines will be followed. As yet there has not been a final commitment that that province would make any necessary changes in its own guidelines so as to provide a mirror image of the federal guidelines. This question is still being discussed.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF MODEL AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Finance. On Friday, November 28 the minister said that he would table or otherwise make available copies of the model agreements he submitted to the provinces in connection with Bill C-73. Would the minister now make that material available to the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report of the question on Friday by the Leader of the Opposition. There was some discussion of those agreements the day before, and it was because discussion was anticipated that the form of the agreement had not been completed. I have asked my officials to prepare translations and to prepare the documents for tabling at the appropriate time tomorrow.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DRAFT REGULATIONS-AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT REGULATIONS TO PROVINCES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Last Thursday the minister said, and I quote:
. .. regulations are not yet complete in a number of respects and depend on the outcome of discussions occurring today with the provinces.
Arising out of current meetings of officials does the government now have a full package of draft regulations, and if so, is the minister able to make them public in draft form in order that this House and others can review them and make comments?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We
are proposing that they would be promulgated just as soon as we receive Royal Assent. I anticipate they will be available some time next week.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do the provinces now have in their possession a package of draft regulations in order that they can begin to reach a decision on how they will participate, and at least whether they will accept a national set of guidelines, particularly on incomes that fall under provincial jurisdiction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in general terms I would have to say no.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT ON CONTROL OF PROFESSIONAL INCOMES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. Considering that a survey of lawyers in the Toronto area which was made public today indicated that they have not the slightest bit of concern about the effect of the controls program on their incomes, could the minister tell the House whether an agreement has been reached with the provinces as to the form that the controls program will take in regard to professional incomes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the most general terms it is as previously set out a number of times. It obviously will vary from province to province but we would expect to be able to agree on ways in which billing will be controlled so that there would be no excess of the guidelines as we have set them out in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: I hope we can progress beyond that, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister saying to the House that it is conceivable that in some provinces increases in salaries or professional fees well beyond the $2,400 limit imposed on other people, will be possible?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would just repeat the guidelines for the hon. gentleman. We stipulated that increases in fees shall be no more than is necessary to recover the additional costs of overhead plus a return to the individual not in excess of $2,400 for the same amount of work. Obviously, if there is a further return resulting from longer hours of work-further productivity, if that term can be applied in the professional sector-the higher level would be available just as it will be available in the form of overtime to wage earners.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF LAWYERS' FEES IN CONNECTION WITH MORTGAGES
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question. Considering that both in terms of equity and in terms of the effect of this program on all sections of the population, and in the hope of some letoff in pressures on home owners, would the minister consider taking steps immediately to alter the situation that now prevails with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? At present a lawyer obtains 1 per cent of the value of a mortgage for arranging financing and in addition can charge the home owner another 1 !4 per cent for legal fees. This means thousands of dollars for the home purchaser. Would the minister consider changing the government's requirements in terms of mortgages as a means of getting at these high legal fees?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we sought to do that on a broader basis, with regard to all real estate transactions and not just those of the government of Canada. We recognize where the billing has been for a percentage of the value involved in the deal,

December 8, 1975

that without any change in the billing there can, of course, be an increase in the individual lawyer's return. There has been some discussion directed toward scaling down the billing rate as the actual cost goes up.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD INQUIRY WHETHER REGIONAL OFFICES ESTABLISHED IN QUEBEC AND UNDER WHOSE JURISDICTION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Finance.
As far as Quebec province is concerned, can the Minister tell the House if the Anti-Inflation Board will have a regional office in each region of that province and if that office will be under federal or provincial jurisdiction or jointly administered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member correctly, he would like to know if the federal Anti-Inflation Board has jurisdiction over the postal employees. It is really the Anti-Inflation Board which has such jurisdiction and it is empowered to consider the agreement between the postal employees and the government.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
The minister did not understand my question completely. Will the Anti-Inflation Board have regional offices throughout Quebec and, if so, will they be jointly administered or only by the federal government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we shall have a Montreal office under Mr. Castonguay but not so in all regions, at least for the time being.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister decided whether there would be any conflict of interest in Mr. Pierre Nadeau, a member of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration, participating in the examination of the proposed takeover of Argus Corporation by Power Corporation? I ask this as Mr. Nadeau is a director of the Royal Bank, which made available most of the funds necessary for the proposed takeover, and as the whole question of the loan was thoroughly examined by the Royal Bank board.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the conflict of interest guidelines function in their application this way with departments or royal commis-
Oral Questions
sions: the deputy minister, in the case of a department, and the chairman of the royal commission, in the case of commissions, reports to me on his own freedom from conflict of interest. People under him report to him. I am sure Mr. Bryce will have this question drawn to his attention, and he can make his own judgment. I must add that, in the case of a royal commission in particular, or other areas where we seek to have people work part time for the common weal and draw them from the private sector, whether from business, labour, finance, the universities, and so on, it is inevitable that these people will not sever all links with the rest of their lives; otherwise we would not be able to enjoy their expertise. So, on this basis I am sure Mr. Bryce will make an equitable decision.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Prime Minister that when we draw useful people for these commissions there is bound to be the possibility of conflict of interest from time to time. Would it not be desirable if Mr. Nadeau were to withdraw from the board for this particular case? Otherwise a lot of people will think there is a conflict of interest here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the facts of the particular case to which the hon. member refers but will ensure that Mr. Bryce, the chairman of the commission, hears about it.


Mr. Baldwin:: Have you read the guidelines yourself yet?


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my brief question is directed to the Solicitor General. Has the Solicitor General conferred with the Prime Minister, pursuant to the admonition the Prime Minister gave him on December 4, as reported at page 9708 of Hansard, not to give information to the hon. member for Calgary North on whether or not the Mirabel and Sky Shops investigations are one and the same? I wonder whether he is authorized to give any answer today. I realize that he must be cautious in what he says. Can he give us any information about the way the investigation or investigations are proceeding? For example, are any investigations being conducted outside this country?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed the matter further with the Prime Minister and have no further information to give the House at this time.


AIRPORTS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of

December 8, 1975
Oral Questions
Transport? Has the Prime Minister brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport, as he indicated he would last Friday, the matter of possibly tabling in this House of copies of lease agreements between the Department of Transport and Kebec Restaurants? Perhaps at the same time the Minister of Transport would indicate whether or not the lease with Kebec Restaurants is up for renewal and whether it will be put out to open tender, in keeping with stated departmental policy.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look at the question of tabling the lease, to see if there is any difficulty about it. The three five-year periods included in the original lease should expire early in 1976. At that point we will look at the best procedure to use in connection with the lease.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why not refer it to the Anti-Inflation Board for a ruling?	.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport relates to the Skywest application, and also the hearings which were adjourned last week. In the last few months has Transair, which operates from Winnipeg, made direct representations to the minister about the Skywest application, or any aspect of it? If so, what was the outcome of any representations made?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I and members of my staff held discussions with various carriers. At least two of the carriers were interested in the earlier question of supplying service on this route. Transair was one of the companies. I would not characterize those discussions as representations. The question of their role, generally, in this area was discussed.


SKYWEST APPLICATION-REASON FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARINGS
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether the hearings have been adjourned for the time being and, if so, is the reason that the minister is more interested in looking for a private carrier than the public carrier proposed in the Skywest application?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I made it clear to the Manitoba government that I thought there was perhaps a simpler route to a licence than using a government carrier and the particular proposal put forward by them. However, the decision to not proceed with the hearings was taken by the Air Transport Committee, as I read the judgment, on the basis of a real lack of information on the part of the applicant.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Over the past ten years, Riverport, Nova Scotia has been increasingly utilized as an export centre for processed seafoods. In fact, in the past month three substantial cargos were exported, two destined for Europe and one to South America. There were 184 clearings from the port since the beginning of April. My question to the minister is this. In light of the fact that Riverport is one of the most active marine centres in the maritimes, when can we expect the appointment of a full-time customs officer to fill the position made vacant some nine months ago when the holder of that office passed away?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State have both made these representations. We did in fact have an individual named and the order in council passed. However, the individual indicated after that he was not interested in taking up the position. We are at the present time selecting another individual to fill that role.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.
But before, Mr. Speaker, may I present my deepest sympathy to all families affected by the loss of a close relative as a result of the crash at the Havre-aux-Maisons airport, in the Magdalen Islands, last Thursday. My question to the Minister of Transport is the following: has the department undertaken an investigation to find the cause of that tragedy and will this tragedy prompt the Department of Transport to hasten the improvement work required for that airport which has been asked for a long time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we certainly are looking into this matter. I share with the hon. member the sympathy he has extended to the people who were directly affected.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that in many cities postmasters are still operating under the old rules regarding casual help, thereby violating the intent of the new contract initialled by the government

*
December 8, 1975

and CUPW, will the Postmaster General issue a directive to all postmasters to adhere to the principle of minimizing the use of casual labour by offering extra hours and overtime to regular employees first?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, this fact was drawn to my attention by the union on Friday. I believe that the matter has been settled satisfactorily. It is part of the new contract which has yet to be signed. It has been ratified and we have been notified accordingly. Of course, we have not as yet signed the contract. However, in the interval, I have given instructions that we arrive at local decisions on what is a suitable number of hours of overtime that should be permitted to regular workers. It is not specific in the collective agreement. Needless to say, it should be limited by common sense. We hope that this can be arrived at in each individual post office through consultation.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It relates to the disturbing information provided by the minister last Wednesday to my colleague, the hon. member for Mal-peque. He indicated that no arrangement had been made or any agreement reached with respect to continuous ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland during the ice season but more particularly during labour disputes. I ask the minister whether the communications committee set up by his predecessor last July, and composed of representatives of both labour and management in an attempt to maintain ongoing communication and work potential solutions with respect to this problem, is still in existence and is still meeting on the same basis as was then indicated, and when that committee might be presenting its report either to him or to the provincial government of Prince Edward Island?


Otto Emil Lang: I think the hon. member for Malpeque's question was particularly related to the labour disputes. While I indicated that we could not assure that this kind of problem would not occur again, it is true the matter is one of concern and is therefore the subject of a number of pieces of work.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I should like to direct attention specifically to the Marine East co-ordinating committee which was announced by the hon. minister's predecessor, now the Minister without Portfolio, a year ago July. The committee was to meet in the months of January, May and September and effect continuing communication on potential labour disputes which might result in the termination of a service which vitally affects the economic interests of Prince Edward Island. Is this work still going on and when can we expect a report from that committee?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had a report on that matter but I will look into it.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION ALLEGED DELAY OF DECISIONS-POSSIBILITY OF MEASURES TO IMPROVE OPERATIONS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Minister of Communications.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: In asking her her inaugural question, I should like to extend my sincere congratulations and tell her I can say in all confidence that she will certainly be the best Minister of Communications the government has had since Pierre Juneau.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Is the minister aware of the large number of complaints raised by people within the industry during the tenure of the former chairman of the CRTC that fairly routine procedures were left hanging by the CRTC for extremely long periods of time, much to the detriment both of the industry and of the public it serves? If so, what plans, if any, has the hon. lady to reorganize the workings of the CRTC in order to speed up routine decision making?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their good wishes and particularly the government members who show such a good spirit under the circumstances. I also thank the member who asked the question. I would be inclined to ask the parliamentary secretary, who fulfilled his duties so judiciously during the interim, to answer this question. Moreover I cannot give the genial answer the hon. member would expect. But however little I know of the matters of the department I am responsible for, I am aware that the CRTC is being reorganized and, of course, if there is any delay in its decision, I will do my best to expedite the procedures.


INQUIRY AS TO PRIORITY OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister has stated that it will take some $110 billion in the next decade to develop our energy resources in accordance with our needs. In view of the fact that the huge injections of cash into the economy which will be required will certainly contribute to inflation, and in view of the fact that there is a limitation on the technology, the supply of skilled people and the funds available to develop these projects, will the minister tell us whether he or the government have given any thought to developing a set of priorities? Has it considered which projects are to be developed, and in what order?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: We have indicated that the $110 billion would be spread over many different projects. About half that

December 8, 1975
Oral Questions
sum would probably be allotted to the generation and transmission of hydro-electric power with the remainder going largely into oil and gas, though I think a considerable chunk would be directed to coal. The danger in mentioning priorities when we are talking about numbers is that if I indicated a priority one might think I should be putting a greater number against the oil and gas and less on coal. We consider all these areas to have priority. Perhaps the greatest priority of all is to introduce a stricter measure of discipline in energy conservation, because if we do we could reduce the bill by close to $40 billion.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last week the Solicitor General stated outside the House that the government was preparing legislation which would replace the existing War Measures Act but was unwilling to confirm that statement in the House. The Minister of Justice, upon questioning, seemed not to know whether such legislation was being drafted by his department or not and said he would have to take the matter up with the Solicitor General. In view of the apparent unwillingness of his cabinet colleagues to clarify this matter, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether or not such legislation is being considered by the government and for what purpose, and when we can expect it to be introduced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Going back a few years, I believe it was early in 1971, the House will recall that the government was ready to prepare a bill which it would have sent to a committee to see if we could bring in legislation which would avert in the future the need to resort to the War Measures Act. So, in a sense, the government has some policy prepared on this issue. But in view of the fact it has not been introduced, what we are doing now is reviewing the situation and considering whether we would want to modify the kind of policy decision taken at that time. I still believe, and it is the view of the government, that it would be important to have such legislation on the books in the future. The manner in which it would be presented and the timing would depend a great deal on the disposition of the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. members for Hillsborough and Greenwood asked the Acting Minister of External Affairs about the aerial raid conducted by the state of Israel 200 kilometres inside Lebanon, in which 30 Phantoms and Sky Hawks blindly bombed the refugee camps of Naher A1

Bared and Bedawi, killing 80 Palestinians and eight Lebanese and injuring 106 Palestinians and two Lebanese. Has the minister taken cognizance of the statements made by the Acting Minister of External Affairs and reported to the new ambassador of Israel how horrifed the Canadian people feel at this mad behaviour, as His Holiness Pope Paul VI has called it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I have read the answer to the question given by the President of the Privy Council. I support 100 per cent the comments he made in connection with these raids, and I want to assure the hon. member that a transcript of those comments has been drawn to the attention of the Israeli embassy in Ottawa.



IMMIGRATION


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is the minister willing to table in the House a copy of the Telex sent by one of his officials changing the procedures under which his department handles immigration cases dealt with by the Immigration Appeal Board to the extent that immigration officials must now grant immediate landed immigrant status on orders of the board, even prior to receipt of medical reports or completion of investigations with regard to criminal or subversive backgrounds?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Since, obviously, the hon. gentleman has not given me any notice of this question I would not care to say whether I would table it or not until I have had an opportunity to see the alleged directive, one of which I have no knowledge at this moment.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Point of order-three o'clock!



CRIMINAL CODE


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
It seems now more and more certain that Quebec intends to set up a casino on its territory. However to do so, the federal legislation must be amended, as pointed out by Premier Bourassa. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what are the views of the federal government on the matter and if it intends to alter the legislation to allow Quebec to set up that casino?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, no such request has been made. Therefore, the question remains hypothetical.
December 8, 1975



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Last Monday, December 1, the minister stated that he would be meeting during the week with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the oil and gas regulations. I should like to ask the minister whether the meeting did take place and, if so, whether he would advise the House of a firm date when the oil and gas regulations will be brought down.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting did take place but a couple of complications have arisen and at this point I am not able to give the hon. member a firm date. I will be back to the hon. member on the matter.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In posing my question to the minister I know he would wish to join with all hon. members of the House in welcoming to the gallery of this chamber two Canadians of outstanding faith and courage who have recently returned home after several months' captivity in a prisoner of war camp in Viet Nam. I am referring to the Reverend Norman and Mrs. Joan Johnson, of Hamilton, Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has been kind enough to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson today, I wonder whether he is in a position to tell the House if the department is reconsidering the procedures for seeking the release of Canadians held illegally abroad in such dire circumstances.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member has drawn our attention to the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Johnson in the gallery. I am as pleased as he that it has been possible to arrange their release. I do not know of any better way of handling cases of this kind than the procedure we followed. We made repeated representations to the authorities, and I believe the last one was made by myself at the United Nations to the representatives of the north, and following that representation the release was arranged. If there are better procedures we would be happy to follow them, but I do not know of any other than those we have followed in this case.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS



MIRABEL-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CONSULTANTS' FEES FOR DESIGN OF RUNWAYS, APRONS AND TAXIWAYS

Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Three weeks ago, as reported at page 9017 of Hansard, the Minister of Transport said that he would look at the $10 million expenditure on consultants for the design of runways, aprons and taxi-ways at Mirabel airport. In light of the fact that all of the design work was done by his staff in the ministry of transport, can the minister report on this matter now?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I said to the hon. member that I would look at the answer to one question to which he referred and also a return that was tabled. If the hon. member will look at the return that was tabled, he will find it explains the way in which the various calculations are made and the attribution of costs for the consulting services in question.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I say in reply to the minister that I have looked at the return and it in no way coincides with the information that was given to me in the written answer previously printed in Hansard.


Otto Emil Lang: I suggest the hon. member read the paragraphs instead of just the numbers.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Could the minister advise the House whether it is true that glove manufacturers are selling foreign goods as though they were Canadian made, thereby favouring massive imports and seriously jeopardizing existing jobs in areas which suffer already from high unemployment rates and where existing jobs must be maintained?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the hon. member's concern for workers in the glove industry and I commend him for it. I want therefore to assure him of the full co-operation of my departmental officials. An investigation could be carried out within the next few days, following the delivery of relevant information or documents. I can assure him that first priority would be given to such documents.

December 8, 1975
Oral Questions



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the announcement by CMHC last Friday increasing mortgage interest rates from 11 per cent to 1114 per cent for persons living in remote areas not served by NHA approved lenders, and in view of the minister's statement announced by his parliamentary secretary on introducing Bill C-77 last week that the thrust of the legislation is to help low income, elderly and native people, in what way does this mortgage rate increase assist these people to purchase decent housing at reasonable cost?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was quoting from a news release of December 5. If I may quote also, rates to non-profit housing organizations and entrepreneurs under the special rental housing program also remain unchanged at 8 per cent. Under the assisted home ownership program CMHC mortgage rates may also be as low as 8 per cent, depending on income, and further interest reducing grants of up to $600 a year are available. These grants would be increased to $750 by legislation now before parliament.
I think the hon. member knows that we are asking the lenders to increase the amount of money that they are going to put forward by $750 million. We have great confidence that the government will be able with its money to encourage further construction of social housing.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fisheries) and Minister of the Environment. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his extended duties and say that I believe that the government has selected very wisely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Robert Howie: Significantly, Mr. Speaker, my question has a New Brunswick flavour to it. Has the minister had an opportunity to inform himself of the critical condition of New Brunswick forests as a result of the continuing spruce budworm infestation, will he give immediate consideration to a more intense program of research to find a solution to the problem, and in the meantime prepare an effective spray control program for next spring?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his good wishes and I hope that my answers do not indicate that my

temporary situation will last for too long. I am speaking in terms of knowledge, of course, not in terms of other things. I should say to the hon. member that a meeting had been planned for tomorrow between the previous minister and the Minister of Natural Resources for New Brunswick. I asked that this meeting be delayed for probably one week in order that I may familiarize myself with the subject. Although I have made a start on the subject, I am not yet ready to give a valid reply to this question.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question in connection with a statement that he allegedly made outside the House regarding the appeal case now before the Supreme Court of Canada in which the counsel for alleged gangsters in Montreal, supported by the counsel for the government of Canada, are arguing that the setting up of the crime probe is outside the jurisdiction of the province. The minister allegedly said that, if that were so, legislation to legalize the setting up of the commission would be brought in.
Since apparently the government has decided that the crime probe is beyond the powers of the legislature of Quebec, regardless of what the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada may be anticipated to be, would the Solicitor General bring in such legislation before the Christmas recess so that, in the event that the Supreme Court of Canada does decide that it agrees with the counsel for the government of Canada, the crime probe would not be emasculated for a period of several months until parliament resumes, thereby benefitting the kings of the underworld?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this matter is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. I merely tried to repeat outside the House what the Minister of Justice said in this House in answer to a question put to him by a member from the other side. Perhaps the right hon. member could put the question to the Minister of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter peculiarly of the law, and the Solicitor General being interested in law enforcement and representing a Quebec constituency I am sure would be able to assure the people of that province that the crime probe will not be set in cold storage for a period of months.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might answer the question. As I indicated, I have had discussions with the province of Quebec concerning the type of legislation which should be introduced in this House in the event the position of the Attorney General of Canada in the Supreme Court of Canada is maintained. Those discussions are still continuing as to the proper time and proper type of legislation to be introduced here in

.

December 8, 1975

order to clothe the provincial crime inquiry with a proper constitutional basis.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the government feels an amendment to the British North America Act is necessary in order to bring about the legalization of that which the government's counsel, in a cozy way with the counsel for the underworld, is arguing to the contrary.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am very startled that the right hon. member, a learned member of the bar, would ask the question and use the words he has.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the truth hurt?


Stanley Ronald Basford: With regard to the fact that he did choose to use language like that, it is not a reflection on me but rather a reflection on him. Concerning the question itself, stripped of its silly language-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -the answer is no.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since both the federal and provincial governments are warning native groups in the areas of Yellowknife, Dryden, Ontario and Matagami, Quebec, as well as in numerous other locations, not to eat fish because of high contamination of mercury, is the federal government, first, doing anything to provide an alternative protein supply and, second, is it doing anything to help these people relocate into other occupations?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first portion of the question is yes. Alternative sources of protein are being provided. The answer to the second portion of the question is that an effort is being made to create other forms of economic development on these reserves.



MERCURY POISONING-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO NATIVES IN OBTAINING SETTLEMENT FOR DAMAGES FROM COMPANIES CONCERNED

Arnold John Malone: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the federal government doing anything to assist the native groups to obtain proper settlement from companies such as Dryden Chemical Company or Domtar Limited which have contributed to the destruction of health and the means of livelihood of many native people.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being investigated. Currently representatives from the province
Oral Questions
of Ontario, who are also very much involved in this since it is their law which has to be complied with, are investigating the compensation the people should have and to see whether in fact a basis for a lawsuit does exist against the company in Dryden.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the findings of the coroner and the coroner's jury the other day in the Poulin case in Ottawa regarding the harmful effects of pornography, may I ask the minister what steps he is taking in his capacity as Solicitor General of Canada to prevent inter-provincial traffic of this material and to prevent this material coming into the country in accordance with the provisions of Section 159 of the Criminal Code.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is responsible for policing the transportation of pornography into the country from outside, but it is up to the attorneys general of the provinces to police the law within Canada and the hon. member will have to approach them with regard to that question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Solicitor General, with regard to the provincial application of these provisions of the Criminal Code and in view of the findings of the coroner and the coroner's jury in this unfortunate case, if it is his intention to meet with the attorneys general of the provinces and include this matter in the revisions his colleague the Minister of Justice and he intend to bring to parliament shortly.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we had not considered amending any laws in respect of pornography. We could take the suggestion under consideration.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to put a question to the Minister of Labour, but in view of his absence, I shall put it to the Minister of Finance.
Can he tell the House whether he has met the representatives of the clothing workers union to discuss the application of the guidelines in Bill C-73 in the conflict that opposes them to their employers? If so, how can we ensure that the workers make up the salary to which they are entitled?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting the representa-

December 8, 1975
Oral Questions
tives of such a union, some three weeks ago, as well as representatives of the National Labour Council. I can make no comment on the agreement now under discussion. I am not aware of all the details, but I must say that part of the group is covered by the guidelines in the white paper and, of course, we expect the members to respect those guidelines.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR NAME OF PERSON WHO WILL BE ADMINISTRATOR

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which is almost a supplementary question. Would he now advise the House of the name of the person to be nominated as administrator under the anti-inflation legislation. I ask that question because of the great powers of that officer which have now been made more difficult by the rather extraordinary statement made by the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No,
sir.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Could the minister tell the House when the Auditor General's report will be tabled in the House?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Tomorrow.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister confirm that Canada has been invited to be a co-chairman of the forthcoming Paris economic conference and what Canada's stand will be in putting forth practical ideas in trade and monetary reform to close the rich-poor gap in the world, ideas first presented through the UN's economic order and which now need specific implementation by countries like Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer to the first part of the question is yes, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested that Canada become a co-chairman of the conference. With regard to the second part of the question, it is very difficult at this stage to indicate the various policy developments or the policy responses that will be required within the four commissions that will operate under the over-all conference. We are presently working out very preliminary
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).l
policy attitudes which will require elaboration as the work of this conference and of the commissions proceeds.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I questioned the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) a few moments ago regarding a most serious change in immigration regulations which could affect both criminal and subversive activities in this country, he replied that I had not given him notice that I would refer to a directive sent out by Telex by one of his most senior officials.
I agree that I did not give him notice in advance, but my point of order contains two very brief points: first, I cannot see that any notice to a minister is required in advance, under the rules of the House, with regard to such high-level instructions which could or should hardly be given without ministerial approval. Second, with the greatest respect, I am certain that the supplementary question that I was not able to put referring to the Yates and Wynder cases would have quickly refreshed the memory of the minister so that he might then have provided the House with the necessary answer.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service-Mr. Herbert.

Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies of the Air Canada inquiry report in both official languages.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) raised a question in the House, and being a frequent reader of Hansard in both languages, I discovered that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: I suggest that hon. members listen, and they might like to join me and read Hansard attentively. On page 9762 the title of the question raised by the hon. member for Greenwood reads: "Israeli raid on refugee camp in Lebanon-Suggested conveyance of government
December 8, 1975

views to Israeli ambassador". In French, the same title reads:

Le raid israelien au Liban-L'opportunite de la remise d'une note de condoleances a l'ambassadeur d'Israel
Mr. Speaker, I believe the situation is tragic enough without adding to it a note of irony and I would ask that the official record be accordingly corrected so that the two titles faithfully reflect the question asked in English.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,191, 3,335, 3,519, 3,557, 3,576 3,584 and 3,621.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What are the number of francophone employees working in the Department of the Secretary of State (a) how many are Canadian (b) how many speak French only?
2.	Are they required to speak or learn the other official language and, if not, for what reason?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1.	1,438 Francophone employees, (a)
In order to obtain this information, it would be necessary to check the personal file of each person, (b) 290 speak French only.
2. These Francophone employees must speak the other official language if they hold bilingual positions and, consequently, the unilingual people who apply for or hold bilingual positions must learn the other official language in accordance with the guidelines adopted in the Resolution on the official languages passed by Parliament in June 1973.


Mr. Forrestall: Will the Department of the Secretary of State give consideration to applications from the Government of Nova Scotia for funds to assist regional libraries such as the Dartmouth Regional Library and (a) if so, what procedure should be followed (b) if not, for what reason?


Coline M. Campbell: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Funding of regional libraries is a provincial responsibility.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: What is the role of the Treasury Board in monitoring the funding of multicultural programmes and activities conducted under the auspices of the Department of the Secretary of State?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Treasury Board does not monitor as such the funding of the multiculturalism program of the Department of the Secretary of State. The Department, however, must seek Treasury Board approval to pay any grant exceeding $20,000 from within the allotment authorized by Parliament. In the case of grants under $20,000, the Secretary of State is delegated responsibility to make payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Would the Minister of External Affairs advise what his progress is on the abduction cases of (a) Mrs. Stephanie Gribbon, Surrey, British Columbia, one child abducted and taken to Portugal in 1973 (b) Mrs. Jean Hobbs, Victoria, British Columbia, three children abducted and taken to the United States in 1972 (c) Mrs. Nicolette, Vancouver, British Columbia, three children abducted and taken to Italy in 1973 (d) Mrs. Mildred Clarke, Mission, British Columbia, five children abducted and taken to the Philippines in 1974?
2.	Could the Minister advise if any legislation is being drafted which will assist in these cases?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. (a) In the case of Mrs. Gribben, in response to a request by the British Columbia authorities that the father be extradited from Portugal to face abduction charges in Canada, the Department obtained a legal opinion from Portugal that extradition was not possible in the circumstances and that Mrs. Gribben must seek a custody order in the Court of Minors in Portugal. In addition the Department has consulted with the local welfare authorities concerning the well being of the child, (b) The Department has not been contacted by Mrs. Hobbs, (c) The Department has not been contacted by Mrs. Nicolette. (d) In the case of Mrs. Clarke, the Canadian Embassy in Manila has informed the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs, the Philippines Department of Justice and the Manila Metropolitan Police that the children are believed to be in the Philippines. The Embassy has been assured of the co-operation of these agencies in locating the children. To date, however, these agencies have not located the children. The Department of External Affairs has informed the Philippines authorities that, if the children are located and ordered to be returned to Canada, the Canadian Government is prepared to repatriate them.
2. The legislation of the jurisdiction in which the children are located determines the conditions under which they may be ordered by local authorities to be returned to Canada. The Department of External Affairs can only bring the matter to the attention of the local authorities and request their assistance in arranging for the return of the children to Canada.

December 8, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Landers: 1.	Does the Department of External Affairs intend to send Members of Parliament and Senators to New York as UN observers in the future?
2.	Will translating services be provided in the Canadian mission in New York to enable unilingual observers to understand the briefing sessions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2. No. The officers of our mission and the members of our delegation in New York work in the official language of their choice in accordance with the bilingualism policy of the Canadian government. Most of the officers are bilingual. The informal format of the briefing sessions normally permits any unilingual participant to raise any question or seek clarification on any matter that may have been discussed in the other official language during the meeting.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the Minister of Veterans Affairs satisfied that applications for disability pensions handled by the Canadian Pension Commission from applicants with serious disabilities threatened by imminent death are handled within a reasonable time frame?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes. The Canadian Pension Commission has a priority system which takes into account situations where there is an urgent social or medical need. Where the Commission is aware of the "imminent death" of an applicant, the claim is handled on a top priority basis.


Mr. McKinnon.: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the War Veterans Allowance Board during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner that Bill C-20, respecting citizenship, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, back on May 21, 1975, I first had the opportunity to make some brief remarks respecting my position on Bill C-20. At that time I pointed out quite clearly that the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was conducting hearings across Canada relative to future or possible changes in Canada's immigration laws, and that the question of citizenship and its requirements were part and parcel of that discussion. It was my view at that time that the debate should be delayed until such time as the committee had had an opportunity to present to the House the findings it was able to make in its travels across Canada and at hearings in Ottawa. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I intend to bring to your attention and to the attention of the House some of the recommendations of that committee as they reflect on Canada's present citizenship act.
Also in my brief remarks on May 21 I stressed the positive aspects of the bill, namely, that the bill will correct a deficiency which now exists in the Canadian Citizenship Act in that it is proposed that citizenship be granted to a child born outside of Canada if one of his or her parents is a Canadian citizen. It is a right that is presently only held by male members of our society but which should be extended to female members. That provision in the bill has my endorsation.
The second matter concerns lowering the eligibility age from 21 to 18. It stated on May 21 that those regulations should have been brought in when the Canada Elections Act was amended. That is another deficiency which Bill C-20 corrects. The central thrust of Bill C-20, as I see it, is the reduction of the waiting period for residency requirements and qualifications of landed immigrants, which at the present time is five years; that is, five years from the time an immigrant receives landed immigrant status when he can apply for citizenship and become a Canadian citizen if he fulfils the requirements.
The proponents of this provision argue that five years is an arbitrary figure and say that three years is more equitable. They say, also, that it reduces somewhat the arbitrariness of the act and the stigma of having to wait a long period of time which could make immigrants feel they are regarded as second-class citizens. I pointed out on May 21 that the residency requirements presently in effect in the United States, Britain, Belgium, West Germany, Australia and New Zealand are generally five years or longer. I am sure hon. members could also point to the fact that in some countries the residency requirements are less than five years, and that this period of time would be no less or no more arbitrary than the present requirement of five years in Canada.
However, I should like to point out that very few countries in the world could be termed receiving countries, that is, countries which receive significant numbers of immigrants yearly. Canada happens to be one of these countries. There are very few countries in the world which meet those qualifications. In fact, in the last five years Canada has welcomed to its shores approximately one million immigrants. So I suggest that our citizenship requirements have slightly different ramifications from those of countries which have very few people coming in as landed immigrants.
(Mr. MacEachen.]
December 8, 1975

All of us should ask ourselves whether we have given immigrants an adequate opportunity to adapt to the Canadian way of life. During the hearings of the joint committee the question of adaptation received a fair amount of attention and discussion. We found, for example, that generally speaking-I know we have to generalize in circumstances such as these-studies show that immigrants have an income equal to or higher than the average income of native born Canadians shortly after they come to Canada. So the economic adjustment that immigrants make is relatively quick and generally painless, and the positive factors are there not only for the immigrants but for Canada as a whole.
On the matter of language, it was found that despite the horrendous problems they were exposed to in places like the Toronto school system-if my memory serves me correctly, at one Toronto school there were about 18 mother tongues represented in one elementary classroom-and despite what one might call the pedagogical problems that situation represents, generally children of immigrants adapted to either one or both of the official languages of Canada in relatively short order.
The government must keep in mind that much more has to be done at the tripartite level. The federal government must assume more responsibility, in my view, and when immigrants come into Canada they should not then say to the provinces and municipalities, "Here they are. You are responsible": the federal government has to go beyond that. I am sure all hon. members recognize that the residency qualifications are really for one purpose, and that is for the immigrant to be able to adapt to the Canadian way of life upon which is based his citizenship. At least to some degree adaptation has to be made.
It was also very clear that we were not very successful in having immigrant women adapt to the Canadian way of life and become part of the social milieu. This was quite clearly pointed out in the immigration brief. I should like to read a portion of it into the record. I am reading from page 53:41 of the report of the Special Joint Committee on Immigration Policy as follows:
Attention was also directed to the particular plight of immigrant women, and especially wives and mothers. When they are not in the work force they have little opportunity to learn the language and make personal contacts, advantages enjoyed by their husbands and their school-aged and working children. Many of them remain in the home isolated by language differences, and can become estranged from the community and even from their own families.
It was pointed out that language training is the single most important need of these women. The committee is aware that federal funds are made available to the provinces to finance courses organized through the adult education division of the schools. But committee members gained the impression that not enough attention has been paid to this program by the responsible authorities and recommends that it be reviewed.
I think the evidence is quite clear that whether it be five years, three years or whatever, we are not doing enough to give members of the immigrant community an opportunity to adapt to the Canadian way of life, specifically with regard to language to which I have already referred. If people come to Canada and take Canada as the country of which they want to become citizens, we must ask ourselves what is the proper waiting time. I fully admit that whether
Citizenship
it be five years or three years, it cannot be argued as an arbitrary time. I recognize that. I think we must consider what we are going to do in the three-year period or the five-year period, whatever the case may be, to make immigrants who are potential citizens feel at home and encourage them to make the contribution of which they are capable.
So often in our society we stress rights; we stress also the rights of immigrants, for instance, when they are being interviewed in the country of which they are citizens. When they come to Canada we also point out their rights. I believe we should stress more the obligations in a democratic society. Not only does this apply to immigrants but also to native born Canadians. I think there has been a glaring deficiency in that part of our educational program. We have not given enough thought, direction and thrust to the training of immigrants and our young people as to the obligations a democracy imposes.
I would like to point out that by the teaching of obligations we will not create negative reactions; I feel that this would do just the opposite. In order to create in our immigrants and our young people a love for Canada, regardless of the period of time we are considering, the minister, the government and Canadians generally should consider this matter seriously and work out a citizenship training period and citizenship courses which will create for all of us a commonalty as to what we think Canadian citizenship means and what its rights and obligations are.
I should like to point out that at the present time we are receiving a number of immigrants who come from countries which do not have strong democratic traditions. It would be for the benefit not only of Canadians but also of immigrants if we taught them not only language, economic adjustment and social adjustment, but also their obligations in their new country. For too long our public schools and citizenship courses have been lacking in this area. I am not preaching an extreme nationalism. I know that for many years Canadians have almost recoiled at the thought that we should try and push nationalism. I am not looking at this matter in terms of negative nationalism or blind allegiance but, rather, as something which should be done in a positive manner.
As we consider Bill C-20 I must be very frank and say that I have certain views on the five-year limit, but when I consider the statistics with regard to people who came before the committee, who wrote to the committee in letter form or prepared a brief, I find that Canadians are rather inconclusive as to whether it should be made five years or reduced to something less or, as the bill suggests, to three years. In respect of that issue I should like to read into the record how the committee thought Canadians generally viewed citizenship requirements and changes which might be possible. I read from page 53:49, paragraph 12 of the same report:
Most persons expressing these concerns felt that government has lost control of the immigration flow. Submissions revealed a lack of public confidence in the ability of government to manage the size of immigration movements, the racial and ethnic composition of the Canadian population, and the settlement of newcomers in underpopulated regions and away from the large cities. The ability of Canadian communities to absorb newcomers, and the role of government in aiding immigrants in their initial settlement and integration, were also primary concerns.

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
Many people in Canada, as they viewed our immigration laws, made one point time after time. I do not have time to go into the statistics, but the point they stressed was that the reaction to immigration today-many briefs pointed this out-was largely spawned or largely due to the fact that people felt in many areas the government had lost, so to speak, the handle or control of immigration flows. For that purpose I should like to read from page 53:42 of the same report:
Many submissions received by the committee suggested that if Canada's record of successful multicultural adaptation is to be maintained, more attention must be given to the development of programs related to cross-cultural and inter-racial understanding . .. Should an assessment show a need for significantly expanded national, community and school programs to promote intercultural harmony, the committee believes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has the floor. If other hon. members have anything to say, I wish they would wait.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will repeat:
Should an assessment show a need for significantly expanded national, community and school programs to promote intercultural harmony, the committee believes the federal government should explore with the provinces ways of encouraging and implementing such programs.
I believe we will only have to teach immigrant Canadians that this is a bilingual, bicultural country, but also that it is a multicultural country. These should not be empty words, either. The program should not be constantly threatened by cutbacks or, as is presently the case, by extinction. All we have to do in this regard is look at the testimony of the Canadian consultative committee which has said that the Minister of Labour who is responsible for multiculturalism has virtually abandoned his portfolio. Rather, we should look upon multiculturalism, and the contributions these Canadians can make, as a positive force.
I look forward to the committee hearings when the minister and his officials can outline the advantages of reducing the period of residency qualification from five years to three. If this is the time that is necessary for immigrants to adapt socially, economically and culturally, I should like to see it demonstrated and know what programs the minister has in mind to encourage the use of immigrant talents and abilities. One part of the bill which I cannot support in any way is clause 5 on page 4. I should like to read it into the record:
5. (1) The minister shall grant citizenship to any person who, not being a citizen makes application therefor and
Then follow the paragraph:
(b) (i) for every day during which he was resident in Canada before his lawful admission to Canada for permanent residence he shall be deemed to have accumulated one-half of a day of residence-
The way I understand that provision is this: it means that an alien-let us not even say "illegal immigrant", because I do not believe you can use the two words in the same context-who is here illegally for six years, under the terms of that clause can be given citizenship on the ground

that he has fulfilled three years of the residency requirement. For every two days in Canada, one day is counted toward his residency qualification, so I read it the minister is saying that parliament will now make legal what to date has been illegal. This is preposterous, Mr. Speaker. I wish the minister could give us an assurance that this clause will be deleted from the bill. It certainly would improve it. I say that because I do not want to make legal something which is illegal.
All around the country immigration officers at private talks stressed time and time again that they needed manpower and sophisticated investigative devices to cope with the large, international movement of illegals. They stressed that the type of illegal they come in contact with often has international connections, sometimes criminal, particularly with drug trafficking on an international scale. They asked for the tools to do a good job either at the primary inspection line or the secondary inspection line.
The immigration program in the last few years has suffered because in the minds of Canadians the alien who enters Canada illegally has been equated with those who came legally and wanted to make a contribution to the country. As the clause stands, it gives the appearance that the minister is in favour of legalizing something that is presently illegal, and it forces members of the House to condone something that is wrong. It also erodes the confidence that we should have in our immigration officers and RCMP special officers who are concerned with these movements every day. For the life of me I cannot find any purpose in this clause.
In his speech, the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) did not say why he felt clause 5 was necessary. We hear all kinds of estimates of the number of illegals in the United States and Canada, but I am sure no one knows exactly what the figures are. Canada is attractive and people want to make a home here, so it is natural that a number come this way. But surely the minister does not wish to see a clause in the bill which will erode the work presently being done by his officials. If he knows of some good reason why this clause should be included, I should like to hear it, but I think the bill would be enhanced if it were amended.
Another clause that I should like to deal with concerns the hearing before a judge of the citizenship court. The judge has no right to defer the application. Sometimes the judge may feel that the applicant is not ready for citizenship and that a review in six months' time would be in order. If the bill is passed as it stands, however, the judge must hear the case and within 60 days he must make a decision. If the application is denied, the applicant is informed of his right of appeal, and once that process is carried out that is the end of it. I feel that if a judge considers that a delay of six months or a year will help the person adjust to Canadian life, a delay should be granted.
Bill C-20 makes many positive contributions, but we must ask ourselves, first, if the change from five years to three years will ensure that people have truly become Canadians, are proud of Canadian life and will make a contribution to Canada. We must also ask if a person who has been in Canada illegally should be allowed to use 50 per cent of that time to go toward the residency qualification. I look forward to the committee hearings, Mr. Speak-
December 8, 1975

er, and I hope the minister can give us some positive reasons why the bill should be accepted by members of this House.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, on May 21 last the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) gave this party's view of Bill C-20, saying that in general we approve of the changes embodied in it and we propose to support it on second reading. There are one or two observations that I should like to make, however. One of the reasons we approve of the bill is that it represents a step forward in establishing equal rights for women. In many respects the previous act was discriminatory. Under it, a person born outside Canada who had been lawfully admitted to this country and whose father or, in the case of a person born out of wedlock, whose mother was born in Canada was considered a natural born Canadian citizen.
Under the new act a person born outside Canada will be a Canadian citizen if either of his parents were Canadian citizens. There is no distinction between men and women in this respect. Under the old act there was provision for a father to apply for citizenship for a minor child, or for a mother to do it in the case of an illegitimate child. Under the new act each parent will have an equal right to apply.
Further, under the new act spouses will be treated equally when they apply for Canadian citizenship. That is to say, both men and women when applying will need to be 18 years of age or older and to have lived in Canada for at least three years. Under the old act the spouse of a Canadian citizen who had resided in Canada was entitled to apply for citizenship, I think after one year. Under section 10 of the new act any woman who has lost her citizenship by reason of marriage or the acquisition by her husband of foreign nationality may require citizenship by giving the minister notice in writing that she elects to be a citizen. There appears to be no such provisions in the old act.
Incidentally, at least two of the bill's provisions owe their existence to private members' bills put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He, in turn, secured the ideas for these amendments from someone to whom I wish to pay tribute, Grace Maclnnis, formerly a member of this House. My party has a long history of supporting equality for women, particularly in the important field of citizenship. One of the basic changes in the new act is that the age for application for citizenship is reduced from 21 years to 18 years. Most of us think that is a good idea. We grant citizens the right to vote at age 18 and there is no reason why non-citizens who otherwise qualify should wait until they are 21 before they can apply for citizenship.
I have already, by implication, referred to the reduction to three years of residence in Canada as a necessary qualification for citizenship. In the original act, five years residence was the qualification. In our view, three years residence in Canada is enough to determine if an applicant has adequate knowledge of Canada, of the responsibilities and privileges of citizens and of one of the official languages. These are still requisites or, at least, alternative requirements, for the granting of citizenship. If a person in a period of three years can satisfy the citizenship court, that should be enough. The ability to become established in
Citizenship
Canada can surely be determined within a three-year period. Indeed, evidence and experience show that although most new immigrants may experience initial difficulties in adjusting to Canadian life, they can and do adjust very well within three years.
I am glad to note that the minister's power and discretion have on the whole been considerably reduced. Under section 10 of the old act it is provided that the minister may, in his discretion, grant a certificate of citizenship, etc. The bill now being debated provides that the minister shall grant citizenship and the matter is then referred to the citizenship court. This is a step away from arbitrary ministerial discretion to a judicial decision. I am sure the minister will be glad to have this burden taken off his shoulders.
I regret one thing: by virtue of section 18, the act continues to preserve an unfettered power to the governor in council to intervene and prevent any judicial hearing or appeal in a case in which the governor in council declares that the grant of citizenship would be prejudicial to the security of Canada or contrary to public order in Canada. I am not clear what the last phrase means. It is made clear that the exercise of this power is put beyond review by the citizenship court or, indeed, any other court. The declaration by the governor in council is stated to be conclusive.
It has been my experience that the worst cases of denial of citizenship fall within the category in which security reasons are put forward as grounds for refusing the grant of citizenship. In the past, at least, these so-called security reasons were sometimes based upon the failure of the police to distinguish between radical or left-wing opinions on the one hand and danger to the security of the state on the other. Sometimes they were even based on cases of mistaken identity. I do not believe that this power should be exercised without provision for appeal or any sort of review.
I appreciate that it has often been said that such absolute and arbitrary powers are required because security demands that the sources of information should not be disclosed. There is a way round this, as we discovered during the Second World War when many people of German, Italian and Japanese origin were interned, without reason given, on so-called security grounds. But the regulations were amended to provide for a tribunal composed of a judge of superior or county court rank to review these detention orders. No one was required to disclose publicly the sources of the information on which the detention was based. Some particulars were required to be given to the person detained by order in council. I never heard it suggested that this quasi-judicial type of hearing interfered in any way with the security and safety of the state.
On the other hand, many who were detained were ordered to be released and injustices due, no doubt, to overreaction and overzealous action on the part of those responsible for the internment were righted. Those people were released. I never heard of any harm coming from this process. Indeed, it represented an extension of justice and freedom in wartime when we were very sensitive about questions involving security. If that could be done in wartime, I see no reason for not doing it in peacetime. I suggest that those denied citizenship should be given the right to that sort of quasi-judicial inquiry. Sources of
9806

Citizenship
information could be kept secret. I suggest that we need some form of review to be undertaken by a judicial authority.
I am interested and pleased to note that the requirements for citizenship do not include the provision of the old act, that the applicant must be of good character. Instead, there seems to be substituted the necessity of showing an adequate knowledge of Canada, of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, and a "substantial knowledge of Canada." This is an improvement. Obviously, it is difficult to judge the good or bad character of would-be citizens, just as it is difficult to divide native born Canadians into sheep and goats. That must be left to a higher judgment. Yet the requirement for some knowledge of Canada and the privileges of citizenship is useful and reasonable. It is too bad it cannot be made retroactive and applied to all native born Canadians or to those who have the privilege of being citizens. However, I am comforted by the alternative provided, namely, a substantial connection with Canada. I find it unclear whether an adequate knowledge of Canada or of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship is an alternative to the knowledge of languages. The clause as drafted appears in legal terms to be disjunctive, in other words, to make these alternatives.
One thing interests me. I see reference to the official status of a citizen of the Commonwealth provided for. The minister is not here at the moment. I do not know why not; he should be here. I would like to ask him some time, when he does deign to be present when his legislation is being considered, what is the significance, if any, of being a citizenship of the Commonwealth in Canada. Is this just a word, or does it mean something in actual status? However, taken all in all, this bill deserves our support, certainly at this second reading stage.
Canadian citizenship is of great importance. It is an essential element in our democratic system. It is a matter of special pride to those who have made their homes and plan to live their lives in Canada and are anxious to assume the responsibilities of full citizenship and exercise the full privileges of that status. It is important, therefore, that anomalies, arbitrary provisions and unnecessary obstructions to citizenship be removed. That is the direction of this bill and that is why we support it at this stage.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for his analysis of the bill. He approached it in a manner that attempted to dissect the meaning behind some clauses contained in the bill that could in future be a possible source of surprise. It might be worthwhile to devote a couple of minutes to a brief explanation of the motives that lie behind the decision of a person to apply for Canadian citizenship. It may not be necessary for most members of this House, but it might be helpful to some on the other side who seem to waiver, as did the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), between the merits of the three-year residential requirement as opposed to the five-year requirement.
The moment a person decides to leave, cross the ocean and come to Canada, he has made a major decision. It means severing friendships, bonds and roots in the country
of origin in order to emigrate to a far away land called Canada. The making of that decision is the beginning of a commitment of certain importance. The person arrives in Canada. He is struck by a variety of feelings and sensations, such as a great sense of space, freedom of movement, mobility and, of course, a great sense of opportunity is grasped by that person, depending upon his or her abilities. That experience upon arrival usually further cements the process of eventual full attachment to this country through the conventional process called acquiring Canadian citizenship.
I am sure some members of this House will share the view that becoming a Canadian citizen is a process which begins many years before in the life of such a person. It is finalized at a certain point of life in Canada when the immigrant comes to the conclusion that this is exactly what he wants to do about his future as a citizen of this country. Against this background, the decision in the homeland, the emotional experience upon arrival and in the years following, and the development of a profound attachment to and fondness for a country in which one did not happen to be born but has conscientiously chosen, the number of years to which the hon. member for Provencher attached so much importance becomes almost irrelevant. It is arbitrary whether it is five or three years.
This bill provides an open door for those who after three years are ready to become members of the Canadian family. In other words, for those who are ready, they can take this step relatively early in their phase of adjustment in Canada. They can simply come forward without having to wait five years. It could be after one, two, three or four years. We could debate this matter for a long time. The fact remains that you provide for a number of years that seems to be reasonably short for those who are ready, early, to take the step. As an example, I would refer to the Czechoslovakian refugees who came here in 1968. They asked for Canadian citizenship on the day they had been here five years. I suspect they would have done the same after three years, or four years. They were ready. They knew it. This was their future. This was their country. They came forward and asked for the Canadian citizenship. I really do not know what else can be said about this question of years. It must be understood against the background of the experience of the individual.
The experience of an individual also seems to have some relevance in the question of language and the question of knowledge. Before getting into that matter, however, I wish to refer back to the time this debate began on May 21 last. Some interventions by members opposite seemed to reflect a concern that under the proposed act British subjects could obtain citizenship after two years of residence. That impression is not supported by the bill. As I understand it, a British subject will have to be here five years just like everyone else.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) seemed to be under the impression that time spent in Canada under permit from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration could not be counted toward residence. It can be counted. As the hon. member for Provencher indicated earlier in his opposition to the clause, every day spent in Canada by a person who is not a landed immigrant counts as half a day.
(Mr. Brewin.]
December 8, 1975

Perhaps one might give this example to the hon. member for Provencher to convince him about the merits of this measure. If you have a person here on a minister's permit who is not a landed immigrant, it could be a mother aged 62 who came here as a tourist and who is in the process of being landed-sometimes it takes years-this person may be here for some time before she becomes officially landed. You have also people in other categories. It stands to reason that people in those categories should be given recognition for their residence in Canada. They are here not as landed immigrants, they are here only on a minister's permit, but they are exposed daily to the Canadian environment, to Canadian institutions and they breathe the Canadian air, so whether they are here as landed immigrants or on a minister's permit, surely something can be done to recognize this, in terms of the fact that they are here, if they wish to become Canadian citizens.
I think you can approach this bill from the viewpoint of one who counts hours and days and scrutinizes details, or from the point of view of interpreting Canadian citizenship as, of course, a great gift that is made available to anyone who comes forward and wishes it without really becoming involved in the calculation of half days or full days, or three years or four years. Citizenship is too important to be treated in that way. If it were to be treated in that way it could lead to the dangerous situation we have in some places like Montreal, where there are stagnant pockets of landed immigrants who are very slow in coming forward to request citizenship. This is not good for the country. It is not good for our society if a person who has been here for 10, 15 or 20 years has not, somehow, found the motivation or the channel for coming forward and applying. Something is not quite right there.
Before I am misunderstood, I should like to to stress this point. It is a great characteristic of Canadian citizenship that so far we have resisted the temptation to provide advantages in the law if a person becomes a citizen. In other words, we have kept Canadian citizenship pure, as a thing to be desired if you want to have it: we have not said a person will not be entitled to or will not be qualified for social security measures, or will not have access to certain services and to certain things in society that are desirable. We have resisted that temptation and treated landed immigrants and citizens virtually alike, with very few exceptions. This is why I take exception to the recommendation in the orange paper on immigration which says you would be entitled to sponsor your parents at an earlier age than at present allowed under the law-I believe it is 60-if you have become a Canadian citizen.
I would resent it very deeply if we were to implement that recommendation. A father is a father and a mother is a mother, and the desire on the part of children who are landed immigrants in Canada, who work to raise their children, who pay taxes, should be looked upon on the merits of that very close family relationship, regardless of whether or not the sponsor is a Canadian citizen. I think we have been doing very well over the years in not making such a distinction and we should keep up this fine record.
In this bill there is a provision in relation to knowledge. Perhaps the minister would like to have a look at it before he appears in the committee. In the bill it is said that the
Citizenship
minister will have the power to waive the requirement for knowledge. I would consider that to be a poor practice if it were ever to become an administrative practice. It seems to me that the present way, whereby we require an applicant to memorize answers, to know the names of capitals, to know the name of the Governor General, when it comes to people who are in their fifties or in their sixties who have worked all their lives here, raised their children and sent them to school and done all their duties as citizens, is not reflective of an understanding of what citizenship really means from the viewpoint of the applicant.
It doesn't make sense to encourage people to memorize mechanically certain things. Surely an old lady who came from Europe 55 years ago and comes forward to apply for Canadian citizenship does so for deeply-felt reasons. If she should be judged at all, which I doubt, it should be in the form of a conversation between a judge and herself, a kind of preliminary welcome into the Canadian family, certainly not on the basis of whether she knows certain things which have to be learnt mechanically, which have nothing to do with the maturity of that individual nor with her sense of understanding of the country, because whether or not you know that the capital of Prince Edward Island is a certain city, which for the moment escapes me, has little to do with citizenship.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) is prompting me to say that it is Charlottetown. Surely, whether you know the name of the longest river in Canada really has nothing to do with citizenship. But over the years I suppose it was necessary to develop some kind of measurement, particularly when you had a large number of applicants, to determine whether a particular applicant was ready or not. I would much prefer to see a system under which, instead of giving the minister power to waive the requirement for knowledge, which is just a bureaucratic invention, we held classes within a community.
First, we would find out from the viewpoint of the applicants what they would be interested in knowing about Canada. Having established that, and not having decided a priori what is of interest to them but what is of interest to applicants across the country, there would be a fairly uniform pattern. We could then offer courses, and having conducted a certain number of courses for these applicants in a certain way, they would be given a little piece of paper-called whatever you like-and with that piece of paper the applicant would demonstrate to the judge that he or she had taken a certain kind of course. I have in mind a course which would explain the economy of Canada, where our national resources are, where our industries are, what our historical relationship is with other countries, and a few other matters.
I am sure this would be a much more interesting and stimulating experience from the viewpoint of the applicant than having to know the names of capitals or the names of rivers. Therefore, I would say that knowledge of Canadian geography and knowledge of the official languages should not be stressed as a qualification, because we know they are very good citizens in the far north, in the Arctic region, who perhaps do not speak a word of English or French yet they are Canadian citizens. We have Indian people, also, who are not very fluent in either of the two official languages; nevertheless they are fine citizens of our country.
29956-68/4

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
I was glad to learn that we are going to have a new oath of allegiance, to be called the "oath of citizenship", permitting the applicant to identify more with Canada as a country. It would be great if one day we had an oath drafted in simple language, language that everyone can understand with wording less complex and obscure than "fulfil", "heirs" and "allegiance". This would permit applicants to become even more aware of the great step in life they are taking in becoming citizens of Canada. It would give them a deeply felt attachment to and pride in this great country of ours.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) touched briefly on the powers given a citizenship judge to defer applications. My understanding is that a judge does not have these powers under the legislation; the power is given in a regulation that is rather obscurely worded and has been interpreted over the years as being power to defer. As opposed to that, this bill espouses the concept of the power of refusal on the part of the minister for a period of two years, and this will probably remove a certain area of discretionary decision-making on the part of judges. In other words, it is either refusal or not. I should like to defer debate on this subject for clarification to committee, where we can discuss the merits of the former approach and the one contained in the bill. Both need to be examined in greater depth.
Reference was made on the last occasion to the provisions contained in clause 33 and I should like to touch upon this briefly. A few weeks ago a report was tabled in the House by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) under the heading "Federal-Provincial Committee on Foreign Ownership of Land". The report deals with the question of citizenship in relation to land acquisition in Canada. For some time now many of us have been very concerned about foreign interests buying land in Canada, people who are neither Canadian citizens nor landed immigrants. This practice has caused great concern, as already demonstrated by legislation passed in P.E.I. It has also caused real hardship in terms of pushing up the price of land in some of our more densely populated areas, something that in times of inflation particularly commands our attention.
It seems to me that although Canada's territory is vast, we have come to the point where we have to decide whether foreign investors, no matter from which country, should be allowed to invest substantial funds to acquire land in Canada. In the end, this inevitably has the effect of increasing the price of this valuable commodity. The report on land ownership makes a recommendation that I would very much support on this rather delicate question. At page 42 the report is dealing with the acquisition of land and has this to say:
This could be accomplished by an amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act or some other enactment, providing that aliens could acquire land and interests therein subject to such conditions and terms, including complete prohibition, as might be imposed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province where the land is situated. Such conditions might be made subject to limitations such as the following, e.g., that they may not: restrict on the basis of citizenship acquisitions by bona fide landed immigrants intending to become citizens; conflict with Canada's international legal obligations; discriminate as between aliens on the basis of their different nationalities ... ; hinder foreign states in acquiring property for diplomatic and consular purposes.
If this is a viable route to follow, it seems to me that we will require, either in this bill or in legislation to follow, a measure providing that the acquisition of land in Canada be permitted only in the case of Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. Another question we should ask ourselves is why some people do not take out Canadian citizenship. Surely the reason for this deserves examination. The Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has done extremely good work in recent years by opening up citizenship courts in places removed from the more structured high-rise type of office building in the downtown areas. In other words, he has tried to reach out into the community in offering this specific service.
I suggest we are at the point now where we must go even further. A citizenship judge should become an activist in the community. There are isolated pockets of landed immigrants where people should be Canadian citizens but are not. Judges could let them know where services are available and they could become active participants in the community, particularly in large cities where they could become more visibly involved in the life of the community.
In conclusion, there are other aspects of citizenship with which the bill does not deal. For example, citizenship begins when a person decides to become an immigrant and receives landed immigrant status. After his arrival in Canada, he becomes integrated with the community of his choice, he builds a future for himself and his family over the years, until he or she feels they are ready to take this final step. At the time of taking up citizenship, on that day that person comes out of the minority group to which he or she belongs: sometimes just for the evening, sometimes for the day, sometimes for the duration of the ceremony, sometimes for a month and sometimes even for good. Mostly we find this to be a person who moves comfortably and lives happily at ease in both communities, namely, the major Canadian community as well as the small community from which the citizen has come.
One fact is clear. That to become a Canadian citizen in the lifetime of a person is a conscious act; it is the will of that person, a great experience which reflects a deeply-felt love and attachment for the country. It is for this reason I shall conclude by saying that the measures contained in this legislation should be looked at against the background of the typical applicant who comes forward every day in our courts. He is to be judged accordingly.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill, which has caused me considerable difficulty. It gives me particular pleasure to follow, in the debate, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I think many of my colleagues share the feeling I have. It is easy for me to understand the judicial import of this legislation and the techniques and logistics involved, but being Canadian by birth it is impossible for me to share the emotion which I am sure must be felt by the hon. member for Davenport and those for whom Canada is their chosen country. I was very interested in what the hon. member for Davenport had to say and I shall comment on it during my remarks.
I was particularly interested when he said it should be the function of the government to reach out into the

December 8, 1975

community. I believe the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) is calling this his out-reach program. I suggest it has not reached the area I represent and I rather suspect this is the case with respect to the majority of members of this House. I think I part company with the hon. member for Davenport when he says it should be the judiciary which does the work. I am more inclined to think it should be the citizenship branch.
Before coming to grips with the bill itself, may I say I have very grave reservations about the citizenship branch being part of the office of the Secretary of State. It seems to me the citizenship branch is so closely allied with immigration that to put it into two separate ministries makes no sense. I have a great advantage in my riding in having vitally interested and dedicated citizenship officers both in Kitchener and in London. No government officials have given me more co-operation than those two officials. While they have never told me so, I am aware of the difficulty they have through not being with the department with which they have the closest connection and that, obviously, is the Department of Manpower and Immigration. It is beyond me why we continue with this farce of having the citizenship branch under the Secretary of State.
In respect of Bill C-20, I hope later in my remarks to be a little more charitable, but at the outset may I say it is my opinion that this bill has been gathering dust in the citizenship branch for years and all through the twenty-ninth parliament. It is absolutely ridiculous that we are sitting here in the closing days of 1975 debating whether an 18-year old can apply for citizenship. It is absolutely unforgiveable.
Let me relate what has happened in my riding. There are two young men in my riding whose character, education and integrity are beyond question. One wishes to serve his country in the armed forces and the other wishes to serve his country in the RCMP. They were arbitrarily prevented from doing so because their father, for his own good reasons, did not wish to apply for Canadian citizenship. These young men, aged 18 and 19, who wanted to serve their country in the RCMP and the armed forces were arbitrarily excluded from so doing because the Secretary of State sat on this legislation for so long.
When we gave these people the right to vote and to enter into contracts, why did we not give them the right to citizenship? The Secretary of State in the twenty-ninth parliament when we had a minority government could have brought in this legislation to reduce the age to 18 and it would have been passed immediately, but he has sat on it for years. I am not the only one who has introduced a private member's bill to reduce the age. Members of this House from other parties have had similar legislation on the order paper which never has been accepted by the Secretary of State.
The bill received first reading in October, 1974. Seven months later we got around to having the second reading debate. Now, well along in 1975, we are just getting into the third day of debate on this very important piece of legislation. I hope the Secretary of State, as is his habit, will not stand up in this chamber and say that we have to rush this bill through, the way he did in respect of the legislation concerning Reader's Digest and Time magazine. There is no way I will be impressed with the need for haste
Citizenship
in respect of a bill which for three or four years the Secretary of State has not been able to get the cabinet to act on in order to get the legislation before the House.


An hon. Member:: Don't be political.


William Herbert Jarvis: I will not be political about this bill. I intend to speak on it and I hope you will stand up and speak on it, too. With one qualification, I agree with the object of this bill as described by the minister. There are three objects. The minister wants a bill that will be equitable, he wants a bill that is logical, and he wants a bill that is liberal. Those were the three hallmarks in the speech he made in Calgary.
There has been one change. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers), speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State, agreed that it should be equitable and logical but suggested that the word "liberal" should be changed to "consistent". I am delighted. I compliment the Secretary of State and the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster, because to me "liberal" and "consistent" were never synonymous. To achieve these three principles, the minister has rejected the principle of citizenship being a matter of ministerial discretion because-and I quote the minister-this permits the possibility of arbitrary exercise of authority without public or legislative sanction. Therefore, citizenship is to be a right rather than a discretionary act. There is a great deal to be said for this and I can see very great arguments on both sides.
This raises, for me, at least two basic questions. First, why are we always talking about rights rather than responsibilities? It seems to me that in this decade we have had an evasion in respect of coming to grips with responsibility to our fellow citizens and we have become preoccupied with our rights. We are so preoccupied at times that we ignore the fact that every right has a corresponding responsibility. When the minister talks about the right of citizenship, he would encourage me to join forces with him if he spent a little time talking about the responsibilities which flow from that particular right. In all fairness I should say that the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster, in the speech I mentioned earlier, instead of referring to the right of citizenship referred to the qualified right. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster is getting closer to the kernel of truth than the minister in his Calgary speech or in his speech in the House.
The second question that this raises is that the bill retains positive ministerial discretion; in other words, the minister can award citizenship but he cannot withhold it. I have to ask this question: If negative ministerial discretion is to be deplored, why is positive ministerial discretion to be acclaimed? To me, this is inconsistent. If there is to be ministerial discretion, why must it only be to award citizenship rather than to withhold it? I hope we will hear from the minister or from a government spokesman in that regard. I would suggest that when this bill goes to committee we should be talking not just about the details of the bill but also about the philosophy behind it, because from reading the minister's speech, not only the one in the House but the one in Calgary, I conclude that he has never

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
come to grips with the philosophical and emotional aspects of this legislation.
I should like to deal for a moment with the part of the bill which deals with British subjects because there is a major change in status there. Frankly, I am not so concerned about the change in status; my major concern has been-I can use no other words to describe it-the absolutely rotten job the government has done in getting information out to British subjects. There were changes some years ago in the Canada Elections Act, which became effective last June 25, under which British subjects were no longer allowed to vote in federal elections. I will not re-fight that battle because that is the law of the country. I raised questions in the House of Commons 2Vi years ago and the minister was courteous enough to send me a letter referring to the campaign to inform British subjects of the change. He wrote;
In the promotion campaign in the media which will accompany these new programs, provisions have been made to draw the attention of British subjects to their electoral rights and their relationship to the Citizenship Act.
I have never heard of this promotional campaign. I read five or six newspapers a day, and I have never seen one word coming from the Secretary of State advising British subjects of their change in status or their change in voting rights. Let me say what I did in my riding. I have quite a number of British subjects, although I have more of German descent. Nevertheless, I had a public forum in my riding in co-operation with the citizenship branch. I repeat, their co-operation was absolutely splendid. We informed these people of their status. I am told that there have been more applications for citizenship from British subjects in my riding than in any other riding in western Ontario. I say that not to take credit for it but simply to indicate that if the Secretary of State had done a proper job probably every riding in Canada would have had a proportionate number of applications for citizenship. The minister has failed miserably in his responsibility in this area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: This is not just to encourage British subjects or anyone else to apply for citizenship. I do not think we should be salesmen of citizenship. That is something that should come from within, from the heart of the person who has to make that decision. But let me point out that the minister has done nothing to indicate to British subjects that many of them are automatically Canadian citizens. For example, consider the war brides, those who came in the 1940s. Most people do not know that they are Canadian citizens by the operation of the law.
My colleagues may ask, what does it matter so long as they are citizens? It matters when they come to vote or when they apply for a passport. All of us have been faced with the deadline when our passport application has been refused because of lack of proof of citizenship. It certainly matters there. It also matters at the border if you do not have that proof of citizenship. It seems to me that if the Secretary of State intended to honour what I thought was an undertaking in his letter to me of July 17, 1973, he has done a horrible job of it.
My final comment with respect to British subjects is that the new bill makes us citizens of the Commonwealth. I do
|Mr. Jarvis.)
not know what it is, and I am most anxious to find out. I think it would be interesting to hear and I hope that someone on the government side will address himself to that question during the debate.
With respect to the removal of judicial discretion and the right to citizenship, the hon. member for Davenport or the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) welcomed the removal of the criterion that an applicant be of good character. I quote as follows from the minister's Calgary speech where he said the following:
-I think that citizenship judges have interpreted the phrase with responsibility and good sense. But here, as in the case of the discretionary powers of the minister that I discussed earlier, the application of the requirement was necessarily an arbitrary thing. It seemed to us that instead of that nebulous phrase, specific criteria should be set down which could be invoked without fear of abuse.
Under the new bill, certain sections of the Criminal Code and the Narcotics Control Act 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 removal of the words "good character" is, in our opinion, an important step in the direction away from arbitrary law.
What concerns me is that there has been no indication that I have heard or read in the minister's speech that complaints have been received that citizenship judges have acted arbitrarily. I may be blessed with a rather outstanding one in my riding, covering generally the London area. Frankly, he is a vital person in our community and I welcome his visits to my riding. All hon. members who are served by His Honour Judge Calder welcome him in their ridings. I wonder what has prompted the deletion of these words. I realize they are very general in nature, but what concerns me about the criteria now is the provision that the applicant must have an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
He may have that knowledge and he also may be the greatest abuser of his rights and responsibilities that ever came before a judge. Yet the judge has no discretion but has to grant him citizenship so long as he has followed the mechanical processes laid down in Bill C-20. The judge is simply following certain criteria. On the other hand, the minister retains discretion to award citizenship. I find this terribly inconsistent. If I had my choice, I would prefer judicial discretion to ministerial discretion. With respect to ministerial discretion, I would like to know the use to which that discretion was put under the old act in exceptional circumstances, and I hope we can get some of that information in committee.
In the new act, where the right to citizenship is emphasized, I notice that the minister is given the right to grant citizenship under a number of clauses, but the minister has the discretion to waive at least two requirements which are rather important. First, the requirement that the applicant has adequate knowledge of one of Canada's official languages; and second, which is perhaps more important, the requirement that the applicant has adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. It seems to me that to leave that tremendous power in the minister's hands is dangerous. Finally, the governor in council may order the minister to grant citizenship and the minister shall forthwith grant citizenship to the person named, even though that person has not fulfilled one of the several requirements in the act. So we have a one-way street; we have all this ministerial and
December 8, 1975

governor in council discretion, but we do not have the opposite where the granting of citizenship can be arbitrarily refused.
There has been some difficulty with regard to illegal immigrants. The new legislation says that in order to accumulate his three years of residency an immigrant receives one-half day's credit for every day he was resident in Canada before his lawful admission. I point out to the hon. member for Davenport that that does not mean a person who is here on a student visa or something of that nature. I think the hon. member for Davenport was sidetracked in his speech a few minutes ago in that regard. The oresent legislation says that each full year of residence in Canada by the applicant before his lawful admission is deemed to be a half-year's credit toward his five-year residency requirement.
This raises certain questions which I hope the minister will have an opportunity to answer. First, why the change from years to days as a measurement? Basically, that is what we are doing. I do not believe the minister dealt with this question either in Calgary or last May on second reading. Second, I serve notice on the minister that I will want to know in great detail what use the department has made, under the present legislation, of granting the 50 per cent residency credit for unlawful immigrants. We have never come to grips with that in the chamber, and I for one in committee or at the close of this debate would certainly like a substantial amount of detail as to how that has been applied in the department under the present legislation.
With respect to the five-year rule and the proposed three-year rule, I have checked the history of citizenship legislation which is found in the two-volume work by Mr. Clive Parry, entitled "Nationality and Citizenship Laws of the Commonwealth and Ireland", and I am no clearer now than I was before I checked that unquestioned authority. I go back to the Upper Canada Act, which was the first Canadian statute, and there was an oath of allegiance to be taken within three years. Then it went to seven years, then to five years. Provincial statutes were generally seven years and five years. There was one three-year requirement in British Columbia. The Dominion Act of 1868 repealed provincial legislation, and there was a three-year requirement and after 1880 it became a five-year requirement.
From 1914 to 1946 we were unable to control the law of nationality or naturalization, so we did so by immigration restrictions. The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946 had a five-year rule and British subjects did not have to go to court. There were amendments in 1967 and 1968. As I say, the history was of no help to me. I hope that in committee we will be able to come to grips with that matter and receive some information from those who know best. I want to hear many witnesses, frankly, from ethnic and other groups. I have heard various opinions from various people, but I am not satisfied.
The period of residency is an arbitrary thing; I realize that. I do not know why we are changing it now. Maybe there is a good reason; I simply have not heard it yet. I hope the committee hearings will give very wide scope to
Citizenship
groups who want to appear, and that we will not have to limit witnesses as we did in the Time-Reader's Digest committee hearings. It is the same committee, but it is a good, hard working committee and we will be willing to listen to people who want to participate in the discussion of this topic. In addition to the five and three-year rule, I want to hear them talk about the philosophy of citizenship, whether it should be a right, a privilege or a discretionary matter.
With regard to equal treatment for men and women, all I can say is that that was recommended five years ago by the royal commission. This is a pretty good indication of the general track record of this department in getting legislation in front of us. I have no quarrel with this legislation in so far as the equality of status between men and women is concerned, but I deplore the length of time it has taken. The old act could have been amended very simply and quickly and I simply cannot understand why that was not done.
I have heard suggestions about retroactivity with regard to citizenship, which the minister has resisted; it is not in the legislation. For example, it has been suggested that children born abroad to Canadian mothers and alien fathers be proclaimed citizens retroactively. My first reaction is to agree with the minister in resisting that type of suggestion, but I want to hear evidence from groups advocating this, because there may be some very good reason of which I or my colleagues are not aware, and perhaps we might be persuaded that this is a more equitable approach to the new citizenship legislation.
In summary, the minister wants legislation which is equitable and logical. He originally wanted legislation that was "liberal," but that is now changed to "consistent" and I applaud that change. With regard to equity, I hope the bill is more equitable than this government has been to 18, 19 and 20-year olds for the last few years, and with regard to equality between men and women. With regard to logic, I have to ask myself whether it is logical to eliminate judicial discretion and replace it with one-way ministerial discretion. Someone will have to do a lot of persuading to convince me that that is more logical. With regard to consistency, I have to ask whether it is consistent to say, on one hand, "You have the right to citizenship", and on the other hand to say, "Even if you fail every single criterion for citizenship, the governor in council may order the granting of citizenship".
I am anxious to discuss these three tests with which the minister has challenged us. Again, I deplore the length of time this legislation has taken and the harsh treatment many of our citizens have received from a complacent Secretary of State. Parts of this legislation should have been introduced at least four or five years ago. There was absolutely no reason for not doing so. I will welcome the legislation in committee and hope it will be given the treatment it deserves, not a ramrodding through, which has been the case with certain other legislation.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the late hour I do not particularly want to use an undue amount of the time of the House, but I should like to make just a couple of points. Like the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the principal reason I want to speak is that we know the problems in the Citizenship Act. They are closely allied to immigration problems. Having listened to

Citizenship
the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), it is quite obvious that they do not understand the problems which promoted the changes in this bill because they do not have large, new Canadian populations in their constituencies.


William Herbert Jarvis: I have 5,000 Germans.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member has 5,000 Germans. I do not particularly want to bore the House with a list of the groups I have, because it would take too much time. However, in the urban centres we do know what these problems are and we support this bill wholeheartedly. I do not want to go into the aspects referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood. He made some very good points about the reduction of the age limit from 21 to 18. Also, naturally, all Liberal members would agree that the clause regarding equal status for women and men as to parentage of minor children is quite acceptable in this International Women's Year, as well as being equitable.
I should like to deal with the clause the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot touched upon. There does not seem to be very much disagreement with regard to this clause, which deals with British subjects and requires them to be examined by a citizenship court judge and to take an oath of allegiance. In addition to the large number of new Canadians in my constituency, there are very many old-time residents who have come from the British Isles, and some of their attitudes really baffle me. In the general election many of them surprised me by their reluctance to take out Canadian citizenship. The hon. member for Perth-Wilmot referred to changes in the Canada Elections Act. There seems to be a myth that British people-I was born over there myself-lose some indefinable rights by taking out Canadian citizenship even though they live and work in Canada most of their lives.
Mr. Speaker, I have constituents who arrived here as children at the turn of the century and they still have not taken out citizenship. I agree that this is a deplorable state of affairs. As members of parliament, we must take steps to help these people realize that by taking Canadian citizenship they will not lose any other rights. In fact, I believe that the United Kingdom Citizenship Act of 1949 made provision for all those born in the United Kingdom to retain their rights as citizens of that country. When I was back there working a couple of years ago, I had the same rights as everyone else for health insurance, unemployment insurance and that sort of thing. This is one of the essential points that I should like to bring out.
Members of the official opposition cast aspersions on this party as being againsts the British connection, but many of us were born there and many of us were elected in constituencies where large numbers of the people came from Britain. British citizens should be aware that they are not in danger of losing their rights, but they should realize that Canada and the world have changed since the days of the old empire when British citizens did not have to submit to the same requirements as all other potential citizens. We must wipe out all the inequities in the law, Mr. Speaker, so I am particularly supportive of this aspect of the bill.

I should like now to refer to the three-year requirement for citizenship, although most of the points were covered by my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport. I was surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Provencher when he spoke of this Canadianization program that he seemed to propose. If you ask applicants in Canadian immigration offices abroad why they want to come to this country, you will find that they know about the rights Canadians have, about free speech and tolerance. It really does not matter how many provincial capitals they know, or how many politicians' names they know. I am sure that even those who do not have a great command of the Englsih language would be able to tell what it means to be a Canadian citizen if they were interviewed in their own language.
The hon. member for Provencher asked why the qualification period should be reduced to three years. I ask why should it not? Surely it would promote a greater interest in and a feeling of belonging to this country. The hon. member for Provencher dealt with clause 5 (1) (b) which provides that for every day during which a person was resident in Canada before his lawful admission for permanent residence, he should be deemed to have accumulated one-half day of residence. He spoke about sanctions for those who have been here illegally. But what about people on minister's permits, for instance? I will not go through all the categories, but there are epileptics, the retarded and even homosexuals. The hon. member criticized this aspect of the bill, yet he was a member of the committee studying the green paper which proposed changes to the immigration law to give these people landed immigrant status. Why should we continue to penalize deserving people because of an anachronism in another law which we all agree should be changed?
These are the points I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I want everyone in the House to know that those of us who represent constituencies with large, new Canadian populations wholeheartedly welcome the measures contained in the bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, puruant to Standing Order, 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alken-brack)-External Affairs-Inquiry as to justification for proposed increase in price of passports; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Canadian National Railways-Suggested relocation of proposed piggyback terminal in Winnipeg.
December 8, 1975



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner that Bill C-20, respecting citizenship, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to bring some historic perspective to this debate which concerns the most important privilege a nation can grant, the privilege of citizenship. I should like members to cast their minds back to the occasion in 1897 when the then prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, went to Great Britain for a jubilee celebration. An important theme underlay the celebrations and much of the discussion concerned the suggestion that the empire should become a formalized entity that would have an additional parliament on top of the two levels that already existed. There would be provinces, nations, and then the imperial parliament.
The idea was put forward very seriously by Sir Joseph Chamberlain, and at one point it appeared as if the Canadian prime minister approved but then he lost his apparent enthusiasm. In his biography of Laurier, Joseph Schull writes that when it came to discussing the proposal for an imperial parliament overriding the authority of all dominion parliaments, Sir Wilfrid treated the project with a cool vagueness that was damaging. He admitted the idea was an old one and impressive; he was stirred by it and asked some important questions. What exactly would he do there? Whom would he represent? How would he vote, and so on? From that position came the decision that produced the independent Canada that we know now. In the school texts of this country, Sir Wilfrid Laurier is treated as one of the great heroes who established a process which at that time was very important. He is given enormous credit for being one of the fathers of the country as we know it now.
I would like to suggest that what was set in motion then should be taken seriously now, although things might not have turned out exactly the way Laurier anticipated them. Now we find ourselves a nation in a sort of splendid isolation. The Commonwealth, as the kind of political entity it once was, is gone and we cannot attach ourselves closely to the United States because of the surge of nationalism in this country. Their system of government is fundamentally different from the British parliamentary tradition that we inherited.
We cannot attach ourselves easily to the countries of the far Pacific rim because there are language and other difficulties. We are not part of the developing united Europe. I am sure if the ghosts of Chamberlain and Laurier could observe what is happening in the world, they would watch with keenest interest the possibility-in fact, it is far more than a possibility-of the establishment of ,* three-tiered parliamentary system in Europe, which will ultimately fulfil the concept that was to have linked Canada, the
Citizenship
empire and Britain. We may see this system tested one day; we may see if democracy can function on three levels, on three tiers. We have known for many years that under a federal system it can function on two levels.
Our isolation is important. There were set in motion long ago developments which made us singularly Canadian. For that reason, I find much in the bill before us to be a contradiction of those processes set in motion long ago by the leader of the party which now forms this country's government. Parts of this bill I hail. Certainly, I welcome the right for citizenship to devolve through the female line as well as the male and do not question it for a moment. I welcome the right to be given to women who years after their marriage may have found that they had sacrificed their citizenship even though they were born in this country. Now they may elect to receive their citizenship. I have no hesitation in hailing that development.
I speak as one who, as a member of an earlier parliament, saw the shattering effect of the law on a woman who learned that although she was born in this country she had lost her citizenship unwittingly years ago and could not obtain a Canadian passport. I welcome the provision for such people to gain their citizenship if they give notice in writing. I cannot understand why the same privilege is not offered to those British subjects who have already been referred to. I will return to this topic as it is important.
I am concerned about reducing the waiting period for citizenship from five years to three years and wish to talk on this subject as one who has been close to the experience of immigrants, although I was born in this country. My mother's people came from Sweden, and when I was in high school I looked after my aging grandfather. It was during the war, when domestic help of any kind was extremely difficult to get, and I learned a great deal from my grandfather, as he rambled on during those long evenings, about what it meant for him to leave his native Sweden and come to North America, first to the United States and then to Canada, specifically British Columbia.
I married the daughter of immigrants of a different race, and therefore am aware of criticisms levelled all too easily and callously at people who question the important feature of this bill to which I am now addressing my remarks. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, at no time have I or my wife ever felt that we faced any kind of discrimination or prejudice since our marriage in this country. We have cast our minds back but cannot recall a single incident which would be a blemish on the tolerance of Canadians. But we know first-hand, of course what was done in wartime to her people and to herself. We have travelled together extensively. We returned to both our ancestral homelands, spent some time in Sweden and some time in Japan. Strangely enough, we only encountered discriminatory expressions during our first two visits to Japan. Perhaps the unhappy wartime experience of the Japanese is grounds for excuse.
I found it interesting to return to Sweden, the land of my grandparents, and to be obliged to make my way in Swedish, a language I had not learned previously, as the people with whom we stayed, relatives of my mother's, knew no English. That experience, more than any other, impressed on me what it means for an immigrant to leave his native country and come to Canada, not for a holiday but for a
9814

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
new way of life. We holidayed in Sweden. That was an interesting but difficult experience. When it came time to leave, I thought what it would mean to me if I had to stay there and make my way and earn a living in that language. The contemplation of what I should face left me breathless when I thought of the courage of those who emigrated to this land.
One thing I do know, Mr. Speaker: if I had decided to stay there, I should not have made any demands on the Swedish government; I should not have asked it to take care of me. Staying would have been my decision, my responsibility, and I should have had to adapt my life to what I found there. I suspect that I could, just possibly, have fitted into the Swedish scheme of things and it might have been possible for me to make a decision to stay. I know that such a decision would have been far more difficult in Japan because the process whereby a person from another country becomes a citizen of that crowded island is difficult and rare indeed.
No one that I know has ever criticized the Japanese for this, because their land has long been the byword for a crowded land. We, too, are becoming a crowded country. Things in this land have changed, too, and what used to be regarded as wide open spaces, are not wide open any more. We hear this theme all the time from ecologists, naturalists and others and learn that many of our so-called vast, empty spaces are virtually incapable of supporting human life. We also hear it from demands of native peoples who increasingly ask for vast sections of this country to be set aside for them. Therefore, we should no longer look on the vast spaces of Canada as empty places to be filled by all who want to come here. Indeed, as someone said earlier, conditions have changed in ways not easily understood.
Clearly, we must consider carefully the move to a residency requirement of three years rather than the previous one of five years. Incidentally, I wish to make it understood that the purpose of my preamble was to remove any suggestion of racism or of ethnic discrimination in the comments I am making. I say this bearing in mind this country's form of democracy. As I said about ten years ago in this House, I consider our democracy to be a plant of tender growth. I know that an hon. member who is now a colleague in this party, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), said that he considered it a sturdy plant. I suspect that in the years which have passed he has come to appreciate that our specimen of democracy is much rarer and of much more tender growth, than he suspected.
What disturbs me most about this change to three years' residency as proposed in the bill is this: the time span is less than the life of a parliament, which can extend to five years. It is less than the customary four-year of a majority parliament. If this bill is passed, many immigrants will be eligible to vote in the first election of which they have experience in this country. There are some who say that three years is ample time to learn all about this country. I, however, have my doubts. During the last election campaign, a candidate in my constituency adopted a very shotgun approach to electioneering. He made a vast number of charges of all kinds. One could pay very little attention to any of them. One charge that he made was that the government of this land was influencing elections

through its immigration policy. The charge was ridiculous. Immigrants had to wait five years before becoming citizens. He did not seem to know that Bill C-20 was in the works.
But if this bill is passed, any government that follows in this land can be open to the charge that it influences elections through its immigration policy. It will be easy to open the doors immediately after one election and to make voting citizens before the next. It cannot be done now. Of all aspects of the bill, that should be given the most careful consideration by those who are proposing it.
In spite of anything the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) may have said, all the calculations were made on that side. This bill has been calculated, and calculated carefully. It should be delayed until legislation follows on the immigration recommendations made by the standing committee on immigration. We are being hasty in bringing forward this bill at this time when the committee which laboured long and travelled far made a report but we do not yet know what the government is going to do with it.
From that report comes some very interesting statistics and suggestions. One such statistic is that in 1974, Canadian immigration offices received over 750,000 inquiries regarding the possibility of immigrating to Canada in 1974.
I suspect that when some of those people made their initial inquiry, they did not know that this land had a five-year waiting period. However, I suspect that the vast majority did know. I further suspect that the five-year waiting period would not slow anyone. Obviously, it did not. One can almost be categorical about this. In spite of the waiting period, they made an inquiry about coming to this land.
I cannot understand, when the pressure at the gates is so great and when population of this country is exercised about the immigration policy to the extent that it is-to the extent that it was not only necessary to have the green paper, but for the select committee to travel; and as we all know, the travels were rather riotous-why should we reduce the time. It is not an acceptable business practice to hold a fire sale when the demand is rising-40 per cent off in this particular case. There are very few countries in the world who are accepting immigrants at the present time. The pressure is enormous.
I am constantly amazed at the ingenuity of people attempting to reach this land and obtain a foothold here. One must have every sympathy with them. Of course, the motivation is twofold. It is economic opportunity, but surely it is also political freedom. We must be very concerned about the heritage of political freedom that we have. As I electioneered, as I am sure most people do, I talked to many peoples. I found that far too often this is held too lightly by Canadians. Far too many people press upon us a wish for a benevolent dictatorship. Too few people understand what is involved in the principle of a responsible government, or in the constitutional monarchy, the best guarantee of political freedom ever invented.
When I am not here, I teach social studies. I work with people at the end of secondary school. I am shaken, as many other people have been shaken, by their total lack of knowledge on this subject. What really shook me was to receive, a few months ago, a rather well put-together pamphlet from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce about
December 8, 1975

Canadian government. I read it with shock, dismay and disbelief. The person who had written it, the proofreaders who read it, and everyone who helped and paid to put it together, had no concept of responsible government as it is technically understood in this parliament and the provincial parliaments of this land.
Three years is not long enough to make your way in a strange country, to learn a new language and to fight the economic struggle that is always there. It is not long enough to learn how the electoral process works and see what kind of government this land has. There is not even the possibility of sitting back and watching one election. Three years is not long enough to do all those things. The numbers are arbitrary at best, I will agree, but it is important for us to choose five years instead of three. [Translation]
I doubt that the hon. members from Quebec can vote in favour of this bill: what is five years compared with the glorious history of "la belle province" and the three centuries since Champlain, since the start of the colony?
Citizenship is not for the moment. It is for children and children's children. We who are here hold a trust for the people who are coming. Sometimes I think we should hold it more firmly for their sake as well as our own. The hon. member for Davenport talked about the reluctant applicant for citizenship. I cannot, personally, become exercised about those people. I know there are many. It is the contradiction to the argument presented by those who advocate haste that there are those who take a very, very leisurely approach to citizenship. For whatever reason, I think perhaps one should respect that leisurely approach. I do not think they need to be hunted down or sought out so avidly, because their decision is their own and it is different from what has happened to the British subject who came to this country perhaps as many decades ago, almost, as the conference I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, and who was assured in coming and very often given solemn promises by the development companies which brought these people out, that they would never have to change citizenship and that the British subject status would go on forever.
There are many people who came to this country who were as sure of that as they are of anything. So if any member of this chamber finds elderly British subjects upset at the news they cannot get a passport until they show proof, or they cannot vote until they show proof if challenged at the poll, I think they have good reason to be upset and I entirely agree with the hon. member who suggested that the way should be clear for them and a search should be made for them because they have something to lose. I know officials of the department tell me this is falacious and it is not so. But I know that these people, when they are up against the passport application and they have to obtain that other piece of paper, no matter how automatic you make the return of that piece of paper, the mere fact they have to go through the process when they were confident it would never happen is an issue which must be taken seriously by the minister and by the government.
Citizenship
For the reluctant immigrant, I do not believe it is all that wrong to wait. I know how fond memories of immigrants can be and I know how they cling to the sense of homeland and how long it takes to give what Frost, an American writer, calls, "the gift outright." In fact, in Canada we have never really demanded "the gift outright" from a lot of people. It takes a long time, and I think the wishes of individuals should be respected. But they are not going to be, I suspect, because when we read the report on immigration alongside this bill there is another factor there which frankly dismays me. It is on page 534, section 135. The Immigration Act provides that Canadian domicile is acquired by a person having a place of residence in Canada for five years after having been admitted as a landed immigrant.
The significance of domicile is related to deportation. Landed immigrants without domicile are liable to deportation on a number of grounds, including commission of a criminal offence, illegal entry, and so on. Most immigrants, with domicile or not, are of course landed immigrants and they have reason to be disturbed by the proposal that the concept of domicile be deleted from the Immigration Act. Put that together with the move from five years to three and you have virtually eliminated the choice that all these citizenship candidates have had until now, and you make it almost certain that every immigrant would have to apply for citizenship at the end of three years whether he felt ready or not. He could not run the risk of losing the protection he now has from the domicile provision.
That is why the bill is hasty and why we ought not to act in haste. We ought to have in place, and pass as the law of the land, the new Immigration Act. Then, and only then, can we look at the proposals which are being presented to us now on citizenship, I would like to think that my opponent in the last election campaign was wrong on every issue, but the more I think about the implications of this bill, about the implications for the political future of this country, and as we broaden the scope of lands from which we accept immigrants until it is virtually worldwide, we at the same time increase the percentage who do not have a background in democracy. What is involved here is far too important to rush through before Christmas, after the delays we know have gone on already. It is far too important to proceed with at all until we know what the law on immigration will be.
One final word, and that concerns the clause which deals with Commonwealth citizenship. I am seriously disturbed about that clause. I have travelled widely around this world and I have crossed Commonwealth countries, India, Singapore, Hong Kong-not independent yet, I know, and maybe it never will be. I know that people in those lands attach great importance to the written word and I know the importance they are going to attach to the section on Commonwealth citizenship. As I read the bill, maybe I should not be worried at all because it suggests that the rights of Commonwealth citizens will be the same as those of the British subject.
However, I do ask seriously: What rights does a British subject have in this land that anyone else does not have? If it is to mean nothing more than that, it should not be in the bill at all. I plead with the minister not to do anything so cruel to the people who will read that clause and feel they
29956-69^2

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
have a claim on this land, unless he truly means that Commonwealth citizens have the sort of thing that Sir Joseph Chamberlain had in mind so long ago and which Sir Wilfrid Laurier rejected. It is essential that we, in 1975, live with and accept the decisions which were made at that imperial conference and subsequently.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, after a while I thought we were having Toronto day with regard to the citizenship bill. We had the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), and now myself. Also, I am sure that before the debate is over we shall hear from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). We in Toronto have a special experience with regard to immigration and citizenship.


An hon. Member:: We don't hold that against you.


John Gilbert: I notice that the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) is making one of his friendly interjections and I am going to give him a little history. Broadview was represented from 1951 to about 1962 by the present member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees).


Mr. Ellis:: Best representation they ever had.


John Gilbert: Well, that is a very debatable point. Let me tell the hon. member that during that time the composition of the riding was 95 per cent to 98 per cent Anglo-Saxon. However, in the last 10 to 12 years there has been a dramatic change in composition. The Anglo-Saxon content is between 40 per cent and 45 per cent; then there are the Greeks and Macedonians, the Chinese, the Italians, people from the Caribbean and other groups from central Europe such as Germans, Latvians, Portuguese, and so on.


John Raymond Ellis: You cannot blame George for that.


John Gilbert: The hon. member says, "You cannot blame George for that", and probably you cannot. But it would be rather interesting if George came back and ran in Broadview, competing against a little Irishman. Big George against Little John would be quite a competition and there would be a tremendous debate. Toronto has become a global village of nationalities and races from across the world. The result has been a richer and better city culturally, linguistically and in many other ways. Having travelled across the country, I have found major cities with a comparative fusion of different nationalities and races which are richer for the experience. Even during my short travels with the immigration committee to the maritimes, I noticed many people from different countries and of different races living there and making their contribution.
I think all Toronto members who have spoken on this bill have been in favour of it, and they have welcomed removal of some of the inequities and anomalies that exist in the present legislation. This legislation was first passed in 1947 and from then on to the present day there have been 61 amendments. The legislation has been cursed, criticized, battered, bruised and kicked at by many people who have had difficulty applying its provisions. Since 1947, times have changed and this is why there still remain anomalies and inequities in the act.
This is why we in the New Democratic Party welcome some of the changes proposed in this bill. There are four main changes. Firstly, the period of residence required prior to an application for Canadian citizenship will be reduced from five years to three years. Secondly, the age of majority for applying for Canadian citizenship is reduced from 21 years to 18 years. Thirdly, men and women will be treated equally. Fourthly, citizenship now becomes a matter of right, not a matter of privilege upon fulfilment of specified conditions.
I have heard my Tory friends speaking of this reduction from five years to three years in applying for citizenship. I do not mind criticism of the bill, but I do like constructive criticism and constructive solutions, which is what I have not heard from them so far. This disappoints me. The main thrust of their argument is that when the bill gets to committee, they will question the minister about why he has reduced the waiting period from five years to three. I do not think that is enough. As one member of the Conservative party has already said, he himself had a bill on the order paper reducing the waiting period from five years to three. In the NDP, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) also had a bill reducing the waiting period from five years to three. There is a consensus that this step be taken. The reason is that people who come to Canada have to pay taxes-income tax, sales tax, municipal tax, and so on-so within a very short time they should have the full rights, obligations and privileges of a Canadian citizen.
So far as the program to encourage citizenship is concerned, many people who come to Canada from other countries have difficulty in applying for citizenship, and I understand this. Having had roots in some other country, it takes a period of time before they can adjust to the Canadian way of life and master one of the two official languages, French or English. It takes them a while to settle down and to get over the cultural shock.
I recall a neighbour of mine who came to Canada from Scotland. He is chief plumber at the Royal York hotel and has been here 27 years but has still not applied for Canadian citizenship. He says the reason is that he has his roots in Scotland and so is rather hesitant about applying. I am positive that he does not know that under the British law as it now stands he can still retain his status of British subject if he ever returns to live in the U.K. So he and people like him need have no fear about that. He has made a tremendous contribution to this country and will continue to do so.
The reduction in age from 21 years to 18 is following a trend today. It is consistent with changes made in other areas, such as the reduction in voting age, property rights and contracts. The best way to make people mature is to give them rights and obligations. Reduction of the age to 18 will, I think, make them mature much quicker and accept responsibilities much faster. I am delighted to see that men and women are to be treated equally. This is really a victory for women. I am sure some of us, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, are reminded of the tremendous efforts that Grace Maclnnis of our party made regarding the achievement of equality of condition for women across Canada. It is a credit to her and to many other fine women

December 8, 1975

across Canada that this provision is in the bill. Certainly there are inequities in this respect in the present act.
Henceforth, all applicants for Canadian citizenship will be required to meet the three years' residency qualification without regard to marital connection with a citizen. That is an important change. In addition, children born abroad will derive citizenship from either parent, and 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 now be able to recover it automatically upon notice to the minister. During the last war many young Canadian women married men from other countries and automatically lost their citizenship. The present provision is a step in the right direction.
The bill also establishes citizenship judges. Under the new act, British subjects will no longer be exempt from the requirement to be examined by a citizenship judge or from attending a citizenship ceremony. They will also be required to take the oath of allegiance. When I read that, I had mixed feelings about it, quite frankly. I come from an Anglo-Saxon family and I thought that we should have special rights and privileges. But when I applied that thinking to my own constituency, which is really a global village of many nationalities and races, I saw no reason why I, as a British subject, should have any special privilege that other people living in the community do not have.
In fact I am rather proud of the young people in my community who at school rub shoulders with Greek children, Italian children, children from the West Indies, and Chinese children. I think they are much better students because of that experience. In fact they rub shoulders with people from all over the world. This enriches and matures them. I do not know why I as a British subject should have a special privilege beyond what others have. This is neither fair nor equitable. Therefore I welcome the change being made by the minister.
Some of my Anglo-Saxon friends in my riding, who I hope vote for me, may be a little disturbed about my position in this regard. I may say I have adopted this position because of my experience in the riding rubbing shoulders with so many people. I feel richer because of that experience. I am sure that this is a step in the right direction. When I read that citizenship becomes a right and not a privilege upon the fulfilment of certain conditions, I think this is the proper course.
If a person fulfills the residence rule, if he has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada, and if he has an adequate knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and is not subject to a deportation order, he should be entitled to Canadian citizenship. I notice also that the minister has the right on compassionate grounds to waive some of the requirements in cases of special and unusual hardship. Many parents of landed immigrants have difficulty mastering the language and in meeting some of the problems they face. Yet at the same time they want to become Canadian citizens because they have a certain pride in being a resident in this country. I do not think they should be held back because of the problem they have. I am rather
Citizenship
happy to see that the minister has this particular discretion in respect of Canadian citizenship on compassionate grounds.
My colleague, the hon. member for Broadview-I am sorry. My colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), has indicated some of the legal problems.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is the difficulty when you have a large crowd.


John Gilbert: I might tell the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Stanfield) that in the next election the riding of Broadview will disappear and will become the riding of Greenwood. In all probability I will be representing the new riding of Greenwood. I am adjusting myself to the change. I am sure the Leader of the Conservative Party will forgive my odd slip. It may be that the present member for Greenwood will direct himself down to Nova Scotia, because I believe originally he came from or has some connection with Nova Scotia.


Mr. Nystrom:: It is New Brunswick.


John Gilbert: In any event it is the maritimes. As I have said, the hon. member for Greenwood dealt with some of the legal problems. I shall not go into that except for one exception.
I wish to mention the problem concerning the ownership of Canadian land by non-residents. I understood there had been a meeting of provincial representatives with federal representatives concerning the problem of the ownership of land by non-residents. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there is so much ownership of Canadian business by non-residents that I am concerned about it, and now we find the government has failed to move with regard to the ownership of land by non-residents.
We have had a tremendous influx of foreign funds in respect of housing and land. I thought perhaps the government would move in this connection. I understand the provincial representatives wanted the authority shifted to the provinces so that they could determine whether or not non-residents should own land in Canada. We have the experience of the maritimes and Ontario, and I am sure there has been a similar experience in British Columbia. The amount of penetration and ownership by non-residents of Canadian land is rather frightening. I am rather unhappy that the minister has failed to move on this important problem. He could do two things. He could state in the legislation that non-residents should not own Canadian property, or he could turn the matter over to the provinces. However, he has failed to act in either way. I hope he can be persuaded during the committee hearings that a change should be made.
I am rather happy that Bill C-20 is before us at this time. In my opinion it is sheer nonsense that we should wait until there are amendments to the Immigration Act. I am surprised my Tory friends made that suggestion, but I forgive them because they are a little behind at times concerning what is obvious. I am proud the minister has brought forward Bill C-20. He will have the full support of the New Democratic Party.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I realize the debate is prelim-

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
inary to a more exhaustive examination which will take place in the committee. I hope that in the committee there is a full opportunity for a very extensive examination of the bill because, as the minister has pointed out, this is really the first major change since 1947. In that period a great deal has happened to this country, to the concept concerning the role of citizenship in the country, and of course in the world community.
I think our first obligation is to examine in detail the question of citizenship not in any chauvinistic manner nor in the context of superficial nationalism but in a broad sense, dealing with the issues which have not been raised in the debate to date. I was a little concerned about the final remarks by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) in which he attempted to suggest that this is the kind of matter which should be dealt with quickly and which should bear no relationship to the exhaustive work done by the special committee on immigration. I served on that committee, as did the hon. member for Broadview from time to time.


John Gilbert: I enjoyed the lobster.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: We hope there is more where that came from. I think the hon. member will appreciate the number of aspects that are related to citizenship and immigration. In fact I am sure he would agree with me and other members of this House that the government in its treatment of immigration has worked on a much too narrow plane, and that there is much which should be considered in terms of the future development of the country.
The government has not looked at the major question in terms of the further development of the country, the social impact of immigration, and the whole demographic question which only recently was directed to a special interdepartmental committee. Indeed I had the feeling, which I expressed openly in the committee, that the whole process of examining the immigration question had been carried out much too quickly. The report that was tabled a few weeks ago in this House unfortunately was able to come to grips only with many of the sort of superficial or off-the-top of the head type of questions.
There was far too little opportunity for major groups and organizations to make presentations to the committee from their own solid basis of research. In a sense I feel we have merely a kind of brushing up of some of the present anomalies and a change in respect of some of the restrictions concerning present immigration procedures, rather than a look at the whole context in the light of the growth of this country over the next quarter of a century and a look at immigration as a phenomenon that will continue to be with us hopefully, and of course related to the vital questions of citizenship raised by the minister in Bill C-20.
I think we must be grateful for the initiatives that have been taken by the department and by the minister. I do not want to dwell at length on some of the missing aspects in this legislation because I realize that no bill will ever be considered complete, and as a comment aside let me say that I am very much in support of the matter raised by the 
hon. member for Broadview with respect to land ownership.
As the minister is well aware, we in Prince Edward Island know that our most precious resource is the land that we possess, and there has been a very conscious attempt on the part of our premier as well as of a number of important citizens in the province to control the rapidity with which land has gone out of use and has left the ownership of those who are resident and are primarily citizens of P.E.I., and to diminish the degree to which this can effectively destroy communities and destroy the capacity of the people of the province generally to use that land to its optimum advantage, whether it is in terms of agricultural production, recreation, or other uses.
Perhaps P.E.I., because its land is such a precious and limited commodity, is the most glaring example of the problem we face, whether it is in parts of northern Ontario or British Columbia, or concerns valuable farm land in western Canada or elsewhere. The degree to which land can be accumulated by those who have no direct and continuing interest in its benefit, and particularly its direct benefit to those who make their homes in that area, is of great concern to me.	*
I think also that one of the bad by-products of the present inflationary situation is that a great many foreign investors are inclined to invest even more rapidly in land, realizing that it is one of the safer areas in which one can put one's money, with the expectation that inflation may continue to rise at a rapid rate. Therefore the action that the minister can take, either through amending this legislation or through effecting some kind of uniform procedure on the part of the provinces, is of great importance to the long term benefit of the country.
I realize that this is not the essence of the legislation before us today. From one point of view it tidies up some of the idiosyncrasies, some of the glaring aspects with respect to the problems that we have faced in keeping up with the concept of the equality of men and women.
It has been referred to before, but I think it came to me most forcibly this fall when I received a letter from the daughter of a classmate of mine from university days who had found, to her shock and sorrow, that she does not have the same rights of citizenship to bestow on her children as would a Canadian man. She just mentions it to me in a letter and I want to put it on the record to indicate that this is a very direct and human problem. Here is a young lady who left Canada in 1972 and met her jusband while studying in another country. He came from Africa where they were married, and within a year or two she gave birth to her first child. She writes:
... I gave birth to our first child, a girl. I then began to wonder if the child was entitled to Canadian citizenship through me and wrote to the nearest Canadian embassy in Pretoria for details. The information that I received from that office was quite unbelievable and I would like to know if such legislation in Canada exists. Apparently, a person born of a Canadian male living abroad is eligible for Canadian citizenship and is entitled to hold a Canadian passport but someone born of a Canadian female living abroad is not entitled to these privileges. This to me is a blatant form of sexual discrimination on the part of Canada and I am very surprised that it exists in such a "progressive" country.
I suppose the word "progressive" is one with which all of us can identify in some measure or other, and it is an indication of the fact that as recently as 20 or so years ago
December 8, 1975

when this act received a substantial overhauling we continued to maintain that kind of discrimination in a statute of this country with respect to citizenship. Of course the minister has indicated that this is one of the measures which will effectively be set aside and that citizenship will be passed on by either male or female Canadian subjects. I believe that in that mood we must certainly welcome it, and can only regret that it has taken so long for action to begin on such a basic aspect of human rights. It is also appropriate that this action will be taken this year which is regarded as International Women's Year. Perhaps it is one of the more tangible things that has been done by way of legislation in the House.
There have been some other measures considered, but I have not received the impression that the government's momentum with respect to rights, legal rights for women, has been given much of an examination and much forward motion with regard to activity in the House. I do not know what future plans are afoot with respect to the examination of other statutes, but I hope that the minister and his officials, perhaps in consultation with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), have urged very strongly on the Law Reform Commission that it continue to examine our laws to pinpoint in what ways they may still create a situation of continuing inequality for women.
International Women's Year has undoubtedly been a mixed blessing, in my estimation. It has focused much more consciously the thoughts of all citizens on the ways in which we have built procedures and traditions of discrimination into our social system. But the temptation in having a women's year as such is to think that when we reach December 31 all actions that are necessary to take will have concluded. I think that is not obviously the case. I say that because I have had another matter that I have raised with the minister which also relates to the legislation we have in front of us.
It is a matter that has received a fair amount of publicity, at least in the Ottawa newspapers because it involved a former citizen of this country and of Ottawa, who found to her surprise, shock, and eventual sorrow that she had lost her citizenship after being incorrectly informed by officials of either the Department of the Secretary of State or of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, but certainly an official of the government.
Perhaps again I should relate this as an aspect which I am not sure will be satisfactorily resolved under the proposals that are before us. I wrote to the minister on September 19 of this year indicating that a Mrs. Michele Beach, formerly Robert, born in Canada and married to someone form Great Britain, because of certain misinformation lost her Canadian citizenship. The story was as follows: in 1972 while living in Canada, and before her marriage to Mr. Beach, Miss Robert inquired of the Department of the Secretary of State and Department of Manpower and Immigration if she would lose her Canadian citizenship by marrying a citizen of the United Kingdom. She was reassured that, no, she would not lose her citizenship but would, in fact, enjoy a dual one; Canadian and United Kingdom.
After their marriage the young couple moved to England for a couple of years before intending to settle permanently in Canada. Mrs. Beach again checked that by leaving
Citizenship
Canada she would not lose her citizenship. Again the answer was, correctly, no.
In Britain she decided to formalize her dual citizenship status by formally registering as a United Kingdom citizen. Continually fearing a loss of Canadian citizenship, Mrs. Beach inquired of the British Home Office officials. They informed her that formal registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom would cause people of many countries to lose their original citizenship, but that that particular ruling did not apply to Canada; her Canadian status would be O.K. So naturally she went ahead with the process and was granted U K. citizenship on July 12, 1974.

In August of 1974 the Canadian High Commission contacted her stating that as she was officially registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom, she was no longer a Canadian citizen, and would be required to surrender her Canadian passport and certificate of Canadian citizenship. The upset this must have created for Mrs. Beach can be imagined. After that she and her husband went frequently to Canada House in protest. The officials there agreed to look into the matter, and on August 28 of last year the second secretary for consular affairs advised Mrs. Beach to take formal steps to renounce her U.K. citizenship in order that her Canadian one would still be valid. Accepting that advice, on September 4 she did just that.
Unfortunately, this second mistake was brought home to her on December 30 when the registrar in the Canadian citizenship registration branch of the department wrote Mrs. Beach explaining that her renunciation of U.K. citizenship made absolutely no difference. She was still not a Canadian citizen, and would not be until she had established residence in Canada for one year. In fact at this point she was stateless along with being, I imagine, almost speechless.
Mrs. Beach has since had her U.K. citizenship reinstated because it would be impossible for her to continue in that situation for any length of time. The difficulties which would immediately be created for her can be imagined. However, obviously her basic desire is to regain her Canadian citizenship. She has made a number of appeals, and even came to Ottawa during the past summer to make personal calls on government officials to plead her case.
In this instance I wrote to see if this was not a case where the minister, through an order in council, could restore a citizenship where obviously in the situation she had received a good deal of misinformation from two Canadian government departments, and in this case also from the United Kingdom department. I want to read the letter I received from the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) with respect to this very human problem because it seems to me that this is the very kind of thing the minister should be conscious of in bringing this legislation forward. His letter is dated November 4, 1975, and it reads as follows:
I refer to your letter of September 19 regarding Mrs. Michele Beach (nee Robert) whose status under the Canadian Citizenship Act has received recent publicity.
Since the Canadian Citizenship Act came into force on January 1st, 1947, a Canadian woman does not lose her Canadian citizenship by marriage to a citizen of another country. However, any Canadian not under a disability (i.e. as to age or mental competence) who, by a

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
formal and voluntary act other than marriage, becomes a citizen or national of another country while outside Canada, thereupon ceases to be a Canadian.
Hon. members will note that that particular situation has not been altered, in my present reading of this legislation.
1 am satisfied that no citizenship officer so designated under the authority of the Canadian Citizenship Act would have assured Mrs. Beach otherwise.
The Secretary of State did not tell me in this letter or in any other way how we will be satisfied of that fact, and inasmuch as Mrs. Beach has made these comments publicly I am just curious as to how the Secretary of State has been able to verify that. In the next paragraph he goes on to say the following:
Although this young woman was mistakenly advised by a Canadian officer of another Department that she should not jeopardize her Canadian status by registering as a citizen of the United Kingdom while in England, the unfortunate fact remains that Mrs. Beach actually ceased to be a Canadian when she became a United Kingdom citizen on July 12th, 1974.
Besides submitting representations from overseas, Mrs. Beach recently called at the Citizenship Registration Branch in Ottawa when the circumstances of her case were discussed at length with her. She was again informed that after she has resided ...
This, to me, is an indication of the kind of continuing insensitivity there is at the present time.
... in Canada for twelve of the eighteen preceding months, she may apply for the grant of Canadian citizenship under a special provision of the Act for persons who ceased to be Canadians by naturalization outside of Canada. Another requirement of this special provision is that such applicants must satisfy the Minister that they intend to have their place of domicile permanently in Canada. If there were other means under present law by which Mrs. Beach could more readily become a Canadian again they would have been explained to her during her recent interview.
The minister concludes, and here I find the weakness and the lack of flexibility present in these legislative proposals:
As regards future law I would hesitate to speculate whether subclause 5(4) of the Citizenship Bill (Bill C-20), if passed in its present form, could be applied to Mrs. Beach's case. The sub-clause would empower the Governor in Council to allow grant or resumption of citizenship without condition in cases deserving of compassionate consideration for exceptional reasons.
What seems to be suggested there is that in the case of Mrs. Beach, in spite of the fact that she was misinformed on more than one occasion and is being faced with a considerable amount of unnecessary hardship, in my estimation, she would not be considered under the legislative framework the Secretary of State has placed before us in Bill C-20. If that is the case, the so-called updating and modernization of Bill C-20 as against the model of 1947 is not exactly the modern instrument the Secretary of State would have us believe. He may have provided some window dressing, and he may have provided some new terminology by changing nomenclatures such as "British subject" to "citizen of the Commonwealth", but I will have more to say about that when we resume at eight o'clock.
However, apart from some of the window dressing it is difficult to discover where the minister is really following through on his commitment to make this a modern, effective, and fair piece of legislation, in particular with respect to the rights of those people-and we will have an increasing number-who will be travelling abroad for purposes of
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).)
business, study, or for their own relaxation. If they are unfortunate enough to be even in the least misinformed with respect to the present procedures with regard to citizenship, they can find themselves in the victimized state of Mrs. Beach who, in her situation, for a period of time has been absolutely stateless and now finds that she will have to go through the whole process of immigration to this country again.
Again, relating this kind of proposal, this kind of situation, to the very tightened up and increasingly complex administrative procedures which have been proposed by the Immigration Committee report and which will likely be introduced by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), one realizes what a great amount of sorrow and difficulty we are going to create for a number of people who have the misfortune to travel from this country and be misinformed as to their rights and responsibilities as citizens.
May I call it six o'clock and continue when the House resumes at 8 p.m., Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are two other matters I should like to raise in what might be called the second half of this speech on Bill C-20.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: What is the
score?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The second half, hopefully, will be more interesting than the first, but no less pertinent.
Before moving on I want to refer to one particular aspect of the bill that I mentioned at the outset. Perhaps I did not put it totally in the context that will be considered by committee.
As the minister is well aware, reference is made in clause 33 to the ownership of property, particularly land. Of course this is of some little consequence to those of us who come from Prince Edward Island-I stress the word little in terms of size but not of importance.
As I mentioned this afternoon, ownership is one of the basic concerns in Prince Edward Island at the present time so I am somewhat surprised to note that in clause 33 there is no substantial alteration or recognition of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which upheld the decision and the legislation of the government of Prince Edward Island concerning the sale of areas of land over ten acres. While there is one major difference between the reference in clause 33 and the Prince Edward Island legislation, the essence is really the same. The difference is that in Prince Edward Island absentee ownership refers to
December 8, 1975

anyone who is not normally resident there, whereas in this legislation it refers to individuals who are not citizens of Canada. As I understand it, in the previous act the reference was to aliens.
As I mentioned before six o'clock, there seems to be a pattern of an attempt to modernize and update citizenship but there seems to be difficulty in coming to grips with the reality of the situation. I refer to the experiences of Mrs. Beach in her so far frustrated attempts to regain Canadian citizenship. The minister has indicated that the change in the law which is already before us is not likely to satisfy her predicament. In the same way the situation with respect to clause 33 will not satisfy the growing concern that exists in provinces like Prince Edward Island, or Nova Scotia, or Ontario, or British Columbia, or perhaps in any of the provinces and territories over the rapid increase in foreign ownership.
Various segments of our economy are under foreign ownership. Sometimes ownership is exercised exclusively by non-Canadian subjects. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain, either in this debate or at the first opportunity in committee, how he proposes to deal with a situation which is of concern to provinces like Prince Edward Island which are worried about the extent of foreign ownership of their land.
I notice the presence in the House of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan)) who shares with me, I am sure, my concern for Prince Edward Island. I hope he will communicate his concern to the secretary of State. Although this matter is not dealt with in the legislation before us, we shall need to look at it seriously and introduce amending legislation. I want to know how the Secretary of State proposes to deal with this situation. Perhaps he will give an explanation in committee. Unfortunately he did not touch on the matter in his presentation on second reading. I hope he will touch on it in committee and explain how we can make our legislation fit the needs and realities of the modern day.
As I said earlier, the bill, by mentioning certain new terms, seems to acquire in the opinion of some, let us say, and air of modernity. This is not sufficient, and the meaning of the new terms has not been adequately spelled out by the Secretary of State. The term "British subject", in use since Confederation, is to be replaced with the term "citizen of the Commonwealth." I am a long-time supporter of the Commonwealth concept. It is an admirable bridge between this country and the international community. The Commonwealth brings us together. It brings together nations of the world which have some traditions in common, but which otherwise live according to different precepts. The change, speaking in terms of semantics, is attractive. But we do not see defined what, in essence, this change will mean.
The term "British subject" is of long standing, and has been tested with experience. For instance, many Canadian citizens have travelled all over the world and used the diplomatic services and facilities of United Kingdom offices, or of other Commonwealth countries. What is to be the definition of "citizen of the Commonwealth?" Was the term introduced merely to avert the criticism of those who
Citizenship
come from other than Commonwealth countries and cannot be identified as British subjects, or will the term be given the same meaning and importance as is given now to "British subject"? The Secretary of State has not told us.
One hopes that an attempt is being made at the Commonwealth Office in London to gain some degree of acceptance for the term which will apply to Canadian citizens. Designating ourselves as citizens of the Commonwealth will be cheap and misleading unless we are prepared to give some enhanced meaning to the term. Obviously the Secretary of State owes us an explanation.
In the few minutes remaining I wish to deal with perhaps the most controversial part of the bill, that part reducing the residency requirement for citizenship from five years to three. When the minister spoke on second reading in May this year, he said he was surprised at the controversy his proposal had created. I am surprised he was surprised. Anything less than great interest in this proposal could be signified as a passive acceptance on the part of Canadians about our methods of granting Canadian citizenship.
Many of us have not taken seriously this business of how citizenship in this country is granted, the minister suggested that the bill will make it easier for immigrants to obtain citizenship after three years. They will not need to wait five years. But there is to be another change. The spouses of Canadian citizens who could, under certain conditions, obtain Canadian citizenship after one year must now wait for three years.
The minister suggested that the changes in the bill relate to the increased mobility of members of our society. I remind the minister that we are dealing with something basic. Already hundreds of thousands of immigrants to this country have acquired Canadian citizenship under the old system. We must realize that the question of changing residency to three years from five is one that is fraught with emotion, emotion with which many would prefer not to deal at all. Obviously a man's relationship to his country is basic.
The immigration committee held hearings for several months and occasionally had a chance to ask witnesses what they felt about this proposal. I must report that most witnesses appearing before the committee favoured the reduction in the residency requirement from five years to three. Perhaps the matter was best put by Mr. Wall, vicepresident of the Royal Canadian Legion in St. John's, Newfoundland. He saw nothing wrong in reducing the period from five years to three, and said:
I do not think there is any argument on it. I would not particularly care if it was reduced to one year, provided that the person who is applying for citizenship has proved to be a person who would be of benefit to Canada. I think this is the whole criterion of citizenship in immigration policy. It is not? If they can contribute to Canada, welcome them in with open arms.
Those comments by a representative of the Royal Canadian Legion show that some Canadians do not think you can define citizenship merely in terms of some time requirement for eligibility. After all, it could take a lifetime or more for a person to be fully aware of his responsibilities and privileges as a citizen of this country. Professor Head, of York University, said to us that he thought five years is too long, that the waiting period would be

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
dropped to two or three years. He even felt that most people would support franting citizenship after one year of residence. He made some further comments which the minister ought to examine, as they deal with an aspect of this problem which we may encounter in future.
Professor Wilson, Head of the Faculty of Social Work, York University, expressed the concern that citizenship training facilities in Secretary of State offices are "very small" and that officials in most Canadian cities were "poorly trained." If you consider statements such as made by Professor Head, and by others who are actively working with immigrants and new Canadians, you sense that there is more to this issue than was presented to the committee.
Although we congratulate the minister for relieving hardship, the provision for reducing to three years from five residency qualifications for citizenship is not an unmixed blessing, as, undoubtedly, some people will encounter difficulty. Certainly spouses, who could acquire citizenship after one year in some cases and who now must wait three years, are adversely affected and, in that regard, the provision of the bill works in reverse. Even more important is the suggestion that it will now be necessary for spouses to meet language requirements. This aspect may create considerable hardship.
While there are many people who will come here in the prime of life as young people to participate in their own future and in the long-term future of this country, we annually receive thousands of people who come here as the parents of new Canadian citizens. What is to be the situation in their case? If the parents of Canadian citizens come here in their fifties and sixties, are they to be denied citizenship if they are not able to develop language facility in one or the other of our official languages?
I ask hon. members to think of the people they know from their experience, and in their community, who have been excellent citizens in their country arid yet may not have mastered the ability to speak or communicate in one or the other of our official languages. This seems to be a foolhardy insensitive extension of what in many instances has been a sensible language policy. I urge the minister to give some consideration to the special kind of hardship that may be created by building this kind of inflexibility into this new act.
Finally, there has been some discussion about whether citizenship is a privilege, responsibility, or right. I believe it is all three. Citizenship creates a greater sense of being a part of this country, of being anxious to play a constructive role in it and, indeed, of being willing to sacrifice to make this country a better place in which to live.
Perhaps most of us in this House are fortunate because we were born here. Those who have chosen, sometimes at great personal cost to themselves, to leave their country, culture, language, and religion to establish a new home here have done so with the hope of bettering their situation. They have come with the idea to maximize their contribution to this country. Canada would not be the country it is today without their assistance, their contribution, and their place with us. In this instance we should be attempting in every way possible to make citizenship for them more of a reality, with more of a hope in that reality.


Mr. Bermo Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, which generally speaking is an omnibus bill, reminds me of some of the old home remedies we had to take when we were kids. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Andres) will remember some of these.
A remedy for the common cold was turpentine. Because no one liked to take a dose of turpentine, they put it on a spoonful of sugar. That was supposed to make it good. You held your nose, swallowed it, and it was supposed to cure you. Certain elements of this bill remind me of that kind of home remedy.
There are some good parts in this bill which we accept, and in fact welcome. At the same time some are rather hard to swallow. Some of the redeeming inclusions in this bill are obvious. For example, in clause 10(2) there is finally some recognition given to the equality of women in the area of citizenship. Legislation that recognizes their equality is long overdue.
There is another aspect of the bill which makes the machinery for acquiring citizenship a little more accessible. The court system will be a little more available. That is a commendable feature of the bill. At the same time the court system should not be depreciated. The trappings and majesty of the court system should not be a kind of travelling affair. You must not take away from the wholesome austerity that exists in the court system. On the one hand the bill provides, and ought to provide for those amenities. At the same time it ought to make the process of citizenship a meaningful experience.
There are some major flaws which deserve attention. They raise questions in our minds. If these features are as important as the government feels, why were they so long coming forward? Was there great public pressure? Were people writing to the government asking when it was finally going to reduce the waiting period to become a citizen? Has the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) been deluged with mail from immigrants who have come here in the past five years complaining that this is too long to wait? I hardly think that is the case. I doubt there are any members of this House who have been deluged with this kind of mail.
Many people, even some overseas, were aware that this bill was in the offing. On an overseas parliamentary trip some months ago one hon. member found that people were aware that this bill was coming forward. They were asking when C-20 was coming to the floor of the House. I had to look to see what C-20 was, but those who were thinking of coming to Canada were aware that it was in the offing. Therefore the first question I must ask is why the government has now decided to bring this bill forward.
Second, what is the purpose of wanting to reduce the waiting period from five to three years? If the government has some cogent, logical arguments that will explain the reason for this reduction, we ought to hear them. To this point, the government has not presented any such arguments.
This seems to be the day when everything is instant. We have instant unemployment insurance. I am thankful that the government has brought legislation forward to take away some of the instant quality of unemployment insurance. We have instant welfare, and almost instant LIP
December 8, 1975

grants. The Canada Council has instant artists like you wouldn't believe. One need only scratch out a few lines of so-called poetry and, voila, another poet! Now we have moved to instant citizenship; citizenship made easy.
The previous speaker mentioned Professor Head who appeared before the special parliamentary committee studying the green paper. I well recall when he met with that committee. I recall him saying that for him it was not necessary to wait five years. It was not even necessary to wait three years. He was ready after one year. I have no doubt that after one year Professor Head was ready to adopt Canadian citizenship. There may be others like him who, after one year, are fully convinced that this is the country they want as their homeland. However, Mr. Speaker, many others are not ready after one year or even three years to decide whether this is going to be their homeland. One could argue very easily that even though there is a three-year requirement they are not obliged to take out citizenship after three years. But when you face the peer pressure, the feeling this is something they ought to do, who knows how many citizens will decide that because three-year citizenship is available it is something they ought to do? It is so easy to shift from the possible to the "ought-to."
The bill also raises the question of whether citizenship is a right or a privilege. If it is a right, then the legislation becomes a contradiction in terms because, if citizenship is a right, it ought to be a right as soon as they land here. It seems to me we are running into a conception we could term a qualified right. Then immediately one has to ask what that is. It seems to me that a right is not something which can be qualified, but that it is absolute. Why pass legislation making people wait even three years for something which is theirs by right of existence, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights? On the other hand, if it is a privilege, the host country has a responsibility for establishing criteria for the welfare of both the immigrant, or the applicant, and the host country itself.
There are some needs we must consider on behalf of the applicant. Most of all, an applicant needs to feel welcome. When an immigrant comes here it is his right to feel welcome. This, I suggest, has nothing to do with citizenship. I might add that authority for establishing welcoming committees and immigration services was originally under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. Evidently he was not doing this well, so it was taken away from him and placed under the aegis of the Minister of Immigration. I wonder whether the minister is really concerned about that feature of this bill. Immigration services, welcoming services, are something we have to work on diligently.
Over and over again as the committee toured the country attention was called to the need to make immigrants feel welcome as soon as they landed on these shores. If an immigrant's first need is to feel welcome, this is something which ought to take place long before citizenship, and it will not necessarily be met by the fact of citizenship. Naturalization will not necessarily make an immigrant feel more welcome. If citizens do not reach out and make the immigrant feel at home, just acquiring citizenship status will not make him feel that way.
Citizenship
I suggest the second need which every immigrant and every applicant has is a need to feel a sense of worth, a sense that he has something to offer this country. Here again this is not related to naturalization or citizenship; it is something we must encourage within an applicant, and he will contribute out of the wellspring of his being provided we create a climate for him. It has nothing to do with citizenship.
Third, I think all of us, including the applicant or the immigrant, need to experience a healthy quality of anticipation. This is one area of life which is being taken away from us. More and more each year society is pressing in closer upon us. The media, Madison Avenue advertising techniques, are crowding us more and more so that there is nothing to anticipate any longer. Not only young people but even adults are expected not to have to wait for anything. A great deal of humanizing can take place within all of us if we experience some healthy anticipation. There are many immigrants who have acquired citizenship over the years and who, in retrospect, realize that though at the time they were waiting for citizenship they were in a hurry and would like to have had it a lot sooner, once they had it it was a good experience to wait, and waiting did not hurt them at all-as a matter of fact the experience of anticipation was a good one.
The minister says a five-year limit is arbitrary. Let us assume that it is so. If that is the case, a three-year limit is also arbitrary. Any limit would be arbitrary if we accept his premise. However, I am not sure it would be wise to accept the statement the minister has made. Changing scenes in the world today have so altered the conditions of society that a five-year wait for citizenship is a good experience.
I suggest, as others have done, that the bill has been introduced in order to mollify the feelings of immigrants who have come from the British Isles as they themselves are called on to experience the process of citizenship. There was a time when British subjects did not have to become citizens of Canada. Those were the days of the British Commonwealth, later known as the Commonwealth. There was a kind of universality of experience among those who were members of the British Commonwealth. There was a common experience which all of them shared. Their experience was portable, as it were. They had experienced the parliamentary system, the whole spectrum of British culture in any country within the British empire, and they could take those experiences with them to any other part of the British empire. But all that has changed.
We do not have the British empire any more. We do not even have the Commonwealth in that sense of the word any more. Not only has the Commonwealth changed but conditions within the countries which at one time were British Commonwealth countries have changed, and the experience those countries share is no longer as universal as it was. So to expect immigrants who come to Canada to be able to bring with them the common experience of those nations and make them applicable here is to expect far too much of these people. It is not their fault and it is not our fault. It is one of the facts of life.
As the nature of the world changes, so has the nature of immigration changed, and the immigrants who are coming

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
to our shores today do not share a common background as they did two generations ago. Therefore, I suggest it is not fair to them to expect them to decide after three years that at that point they must make a choice to adopt Canada as their homeland. Again it can be argued that it is not mandatory that they do so, but nevertheless once the suggestion is made we open the door to them to take that step.
If there is one universal feeling across this country-I think all of us on the immigration committee touring Canada were apprised of this-it is the desire to establish and maintain a sense of worth in Canadian citizenship. People want our citizenship to mean something. The implication is always there that if citizenship is made too easy to obtain its value is depreciated.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is one other aspect of the bill that it is discouraging-for lack of a better word-to contemplate. If lowering the waiting period from five years to three tends to depreciate the value of citizenship, then even more so if people are allowed to count 50 per cent of their illegal residence in Canada toward their citizenship. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that if the present bill passes a person could be in Canada illegally for six years and he will qualify for citizenship? Do we want to reward violation of the law in this way? Is this the way we enhance the value of Canadian citizenship?
I suggest that as presently drafted the bill has far too many areas requiring consideration before it can receive our acceptance and be presented to the Canadian people. I recommend that we examine the bill thoroughly, and that in committee we make the kind of amendments that will make the bill fair to immigrants, and certainly fair to the Canadian people.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, before I commence my remarks perhaps I should comment on Your Honour's fine appearance in the Chair tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: It is a privilege to take part tonight in this debate on Bill C-20, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. It has been said many times before in this debate that it is high time certain changes were made in Canada's citizenship law. These changes are long overdue. I think the last time any meaningful changes were made was in 1947. The bill before the House, I am sure members on all sides will agree, contains some provisions that cannot be disputed, which are much needed, and which we certainly support.
I want to talk about four points tonight. The first concerns equal rights for women. The second has to do with lowering the age of eligibility to 18 years. Then I want to say something about persons born outside Canada of Canadian parents. Lastly, and perhaps more important from our point of view, I want to discuss lowering the residence time in Canada from five years to three to qualify for making application for Canadian citizenship.
Before making these points I should like to review the citizenship court procedure, as I have witnessed it many times in the area I come from and which I have the honour
to represent here. I want to talk about the citizenship courts in the judicial district of Norfolk, presided over by His Honour Judge Pringle, and in the judicial district of Haldimand, presided over by Judge Leach. Both of these gentlemen perform a meaningful ceremony in their respective citizenship courts. The proceedings are conducted with dignity, and the national anthem is played by a school band which is actually brought into the courtroom. There is a colour parade by the Royal Canadian Legion or local police, so that the Canadian flag is prominently displayed before our new citizens. Heads of the various ethnic groups in the community are invited to be present and to welcome new citizens after they receive their certificates. The Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire takes this opportunity to instil a note of patriotism into the business of citizenship.
In addition, police officials and publicly appointed officials such as the mayor of the municipality, members of service clubs, and last but hopefully not least, members of parliament and members of the provincial legislature are present. I always make a point of attending these courts because of the fact that the judge tries, in the way I have described, to make the ceremony a meaningful one to the new citizens. It is not a sausage machine where citizens are turned out en masse; they know they have participated in a ceremony that is of great benefit to them and which will have meaning for them for the rest of their lives.
One matter that has disturbed me a bit in the past and which I notice will now be changed is that a judge presently asks new citizens to take an oath of renunciation, renouncing their former homeland. I always thought that this was a little difficult for a person who had already torn himself away from his homeland and come to a new country. In future a judge will not ask citizens to take such an oath; they will simply be asked to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, and to obey the laws of Canada, their new country.
Now I wish to say a word or two about each of the four points I want to make. With respect to equal rights for women, it is very fitting and timely that this amendment be made this year, International Women's Year. Already this year the government has taken steps to amend certain other acts so as to give equal rights to women. I have in mind the Canada Pension Plan where the survivor is now referred to as the spouse, be he or she man or woman. The veterans' legislation was also amended so that a woman serving in one of the women's arms of the armed forces can participate equally with men. No one can fault the minister on this score and I am sure we applaud him for taking this step.
With regard to lowering the age of eligibility to 18 years, this too is a step in keeping with the times. In Ontario today the age of majority is 18 years, which means a person of that age can own property, has the right to sue-and can be sued, I guess-and is generally responsible for his actions. Eighteen is also the voting age now across Canada. I might also mention, perhaps with not too much pride, that for good or bad it is also the legal drinking age. Thus it is certainly logical that the age of application for citizenship should also be reduced to 18 years!

December 8, 1975

Perhaps even more important than reasons such as this, it seems to me that young people in this day and age mature more rapidly than was the case when I was growing up; certainly they seem to have a better grasp of what is going on around them in society. They have a better understanding of government. They are more critical of their elected officials, and demand to know where they stand on issues. This being true, it seems to me it follows that they ought to have the right to participate more fully in the democratic process. The lowering of the age of eligibility to 18 years makes this possible. As citizens they have greater opportunity to do the things in which they are interested.
An anomaly has been brought to my attention in this legislation. I am not very clear about it, but perhaps the minister will clear it up when he appears before the committee. I refer to subclause (3) of clause 4 in Part 1 of the bill concerning persons born of Canadian parents outside Canada. This matter was brought to my attention through the case of a Canadian man who is attempting to obtain his citizenship. He was born of Canadian parents while they were missionaries in India. At age 15 he came to Canada with his parents while they were on furlough. He remained in Canada. He entered school in Oshawa. He was educated there and then worked for a period. During the war he joined the air force. He served with distinction.
After the war he returned to Canada and entered university where he obtained a degree in forestry. He is now employed by the Ontario Department of Resources in the Lands and Forests Branch. This man attempted to obtain his Canadian citizenship. Despite all his efforts he has been unable to do what should have been a simple thing. I should like to refer to the letter he received from the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship. It states;
Dear Mr. Scott:
This refers to your application for proof of Canadian citizenship.
In order to have a claim to Canadian citizenship your father had to be born in Canada and you had to have entered Canada as a landed immigrant prior to January 1, 1947. We have proof that your father was born in Canada. According to immigration records you entered Canada as a non-immigrant on May 29, 1937. They have been unable to locate a record of your subsequent landing in Canada.
For goodness sake, this man never left Canada. He has been here continuously since he first entered Canada.
We therefore request that if you have any documents in your possession showing that you did obtain landed immigrant status please forward them for our notation.
How would a young man 15 years of age, coming here with his parents who were on furlough, have gone through that process?
If we are unable to locate a record of your entry as a landed immigrant before January 1, 1947, it will be necessary to rule that you do not have a claim to Canadian citizenship. You will then be required to clarify your status with the immigration authorities and apply for the grant of citizenship. Please forward any return correspondence to the attention of the undersigned.
The young man then sent an exact record of what he had done. He wrote:
Born: April 7, 1922
Location: Indore, India
Parents: Alex Scott, Canadian Missionary
Citizenship
Canadian citizen by birth.
I came to Canada in May 1937 when my parents came back home on furlough for a year. They went back in 1938. I stayed in Canada and went to high school in Oshawa at O.C.V.I. I graduated from there in 1942 and joined the RCAF. I served in the Air Force for about 3 Vt years. I was overseas in England for 13 months and returned in the fall of 1945. After working for a year in Toronto I went to U. of T. graduating in 1950 as a forester. Since then I have worked for the Ont. government as a forester.
Surely a man in that situation should not be put through the wringer in order to prove he is a Canadian citizen and has the right to a citizenship certificate. I hope the minister, when he speaks in this debate, will say that that situation will be corrected by the subclause to which I have referred.
The last but certainly not the least matter so far as we on this side are concerned has to do with the period of residence in Canada before an immigrant can qualify and apply for Canadian citizenship. This period is to be decreased from five to three years. The immigrants who come to this country come from a variety of cultures. Some of these cultures are not too dissimilar to that in Canada. I refer particularly to Great Britain, France, or even Germany and other European countries. Those who come from countries behind the iron curtain come from a different culture, or at least certainly from a country in which there is a different form of government.
I refer, however, to immigrants from the Far East. They come from a culture which is vastly different to ours. To expect these people in three years to assimilate a culture which is so different from their own is asking too much. I do not think they would feel that in such a period they would be sufficiently acquainted with the Canadian system, the customs, the language, and all the other things which are necessary in order to qualify for and obtain Canadian citizenship so that they might make a contribution to this country. For that reason it seems to me a period of three years is a little too short a time.
Another point, which I do not believe has been made, is that we have many people who have been granted citizenship after waiting a period of five years. I know this is the situation in many areas. In my own area, which is a rural area, I think perhaps I have as varied a group of ethnic people as in any section of Canada. These people have waited five years. They have become Canadian citizens. I do not think they would look too kindly on their compatriots who come here and then in a period of three years are able to qualify.
When we lower the period for qualification I think we depreciate the value of Canadian citizenship. I know there are those who will say if we do not do this we are denying them their right when they have shown they are ready and fit to become Canadian citizens. I do not think too many people will strenuously object on that score.
I recall attending at a citizenship court when a judge was examining a certain applicant for Canadian citizenship. The judge had to ask the applicant certain questions about our country. This person knew nothing about it. The judge told him he could not sign his application and asked him to come back in three months. I was in court the next time the same person was examined, and this time he knew no more than he did the first time. The judge turned down

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
his application. This told me that this particular judge, Judge Pringle, was doing his job as a judge of the citizenship court. He was making sure that these people knew what they were getting into, and that they knew they had some responsibility to become acquainted with the country to which they were asking to be admitted as citizens. After five years this particular applicant was not able to satisfy that judge. With the period of three years such a situation could be even worse.
I believe it is unjust to lower the period from five years to three years. I think the applicants will treasure their citizenship more if it is a little more difficult to obtain. When this bill goes to the committee the committee will have a great deal of work to do to make it meaningful. Many questions which have been raised in this debate will have to be answered. I look forward to the proceedings in the committee and to what the minister will have to say when he replies.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps I should rise at this time so that members of the House would know that the Mr. Towers who passed away today was not the member for Red Deer, even though he had the same initials. I refer to Mr. Graham Towers, who was Governor of the Bank of Canada when it was first instituted, and who held that position for some years. I am sure everyone feels a great deal of sympathy for his survivors and would like to pay a tribute to him for the contribution he made to Canada.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to dwell for a moment on the point that the great depression of the 1930's came about because of lack of protection from an institution such as the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada itself was instituted under prime minister R. B. Bennett. The reason that corporation was established was to protect Canada forever from recessions of that nature. I am sure there are some of us in the House today who remember well the financial crash in 1929. I hope that nothing like that will ever happen to Canadians again. I am sure that Mr. Graham Towers, in spite of governments, has instilled in the hearts of Canadian people a desire to protect themselves from a depression such as we had in the 1930's. I am sure that all members of the House agree with me when I say that we are all saddened by his passing.
Today we are dealing with a very important bill because, after all, citizenship is one of the greatest benefits we have to offer to those who come to our country to make their home. Sometimes I think that we as a people have a tendency to take things too lightly. If something comes easily, we do not appreciate its value.
Many of us sitting in the House today can trace our ancestors back over 100 years and we appreciate what these people have done for us. They have set the stage for the benefits we are now enjoying. One of the things which we have to be particularly careful about is that we do not take any of these privileges for granted. It is so easy to have all these benefits slip away, in which case we will not be able to do those things for those about us, as Canadian citizens that we are privileged to do at present.

Actually, proper citizenship builds the country, and pride of citizenship is probably one of the greatest things that can be instilled within the human being. All too often we have a tendency to feel that the country or the world owes us a living. This is one of the greatest mistakes that anyone can make. In fact instead of asking what the world can give us, we should ask what we can give to the world. In like manner we can ask as Canadians what Canada will do for us. What we should ask is what we can do for Canada. One of the most important things we have to realize as citizens of this country is that we all have a contribution to make to our country and to our heritage. We must not take this too lightly.
I rise to speak in this debate because I believe that when you see something happening with which you do not agree, perhaps some time in the future people may ask you why you allowed this to happen and where you were. Certainly I think it would be very unfortunate for a member of parliament to answer that he was there but did not say anything. That is why I rise to speak now, because I want to try to instill in those about me, and those who may read the words of wisdom that have been expressed in the debate today, a spirit of Canadianism, a spirit which will carry us well into the future.
I am concerned about one aspect of this bill, that is the provision under which an individual who is in this country illegally can use half of the time he spent here toward the period that is required for his acquisition of Canadian citizenship. I think that is wrong because, first of all, that person is in this country illegally, so why in the world should we as Canadians condone that which is illegal? I think it only depreciates the worth of Canadian citizenship. I do not think we can afford to condone that which is wrong. Certainly it must be wrong, or why should we say that a person is in the country illegally? Therefore it is wrong, and it must be considered so. We are entirely wrong in agreeing with that provision in the bill, and certainly I wish to voice my disapproval of it. I do not want to have any part of it whatsoever.
Second, there is possibly a misconception to a certain degree concerning what Canada has to offer to people in other parts of the world. I believe that perhaps we have misled them to a degree and they might feel that this is a land of milk and honey. We should tell these people when they want to immigrate to Canada that we expect them to become good citizens because that is the only way in which an individual can justify his existence here and give his utmost to the land in which he lives. When immigrants come here we must be assured that they will be happy.
Just recently I was in communication with a family that had come to Canada under the illusion that everything was hunky-dory. The man, his wife and children stayed here for awhile, but eventually he decided that Canada has nothing to offer him, so he left. I think we must be honest with these people who immigrate to our country and we must tell them that we expect them to become good citizens. We must do this for our personal benefit as well as theirs. To a degree, all people are selfish-but I think we must be careful that they be good citizens and that they will enjoy living in Canada.
After reading some of the headlines which appear in the newspapers these days I sometimes wonder if Canada has that much more to offer other people than perhaps they
December 8, 1975

have in their own country, because this is not a land where you can go out and pick a coconut or a banana, or an orange off a tree since we have a winter which lasts six months. We must take this into consideration with regard to people who come here from a hot, humid climate. It is a hardship for many people. Therefore the Canadian citizen has to realize that he has to allow for six months of winter and six months of summer, and this is something which is not known to all people.
Going back to the earlier days, just for a moment, when this country was being settled, many people brought their livestock up from south of the border. Their loss was tremendous simply because they did not know what they were getting into and were ill prepared. In view of that I think it would be only honest on our part to ensure that today's immigrants are better informed. Many of us will remember the 1920's when there was a large immigration of people from, primarily, the United Kingdom. I remember the experience our family had with some of those immigrants. They were particularly unhappy here, and after they had spent a number of years in Canada they decided to go back to the land they loved best and the land in which they felt most comfortable.
So it was with many war brides. Many of those girls went back to the old country after the war because they were not happy here. In view of that, if we were to have a short period of time, whether it be an extra year or two, to ensure that those people will be satisfied to be Canadian citizens, I think that would be to their benefit. It must be very disenchanting to individuals to take out citizenship in a country and then to find out that they have made a mistake. Of course they then must go through the whole procedure again, because usually when citizenship is taken out in one country it is not possible to maintain dual citizenship. I think we have to consider that.
In our citizenship courts I am sure we all appreciate the work our judges are doing. The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), who spoke previously, mentioned this matter, and I also should like to mention the judge who presides at the citizenship court in Red Deer, Judge Allen. He does a tremendous job. In a very moving ceremony Judge Allen impresses upon people the importance of the step they are taking. As mentioned by the hon. member, the IODE takes part in this service, and they extend a welcoming hand of friendship, for which I am sure those people are very grateful.
Of course there are other organizations which also participate in the ceremony including the Canadian Bible Society, which makes a presentation of a bible to each of the individuals at these citizenship courts. All in all, it adds up to a certain satisfaction in the lives of those who become Canadian citizens. We must take these things into consideration in this House when we are dealing with this bill in order to ensure that whatever legislation is passed serves a useful purpose.
We must realize that we have problems in Canada which other countries do not have. There probably is not another country in the world with the major portion of its population living within 300 miles of a neighbouring country,
Citizenship
which is the case in Canada. Over two thirds of our population live within 300 miles of the United States border, and of course the remainder is spread over about
5,000	miles.
Immigrants seeking citizenship should be told that there are other places in Canada besides Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, and Montreal. It seems that too often immigrants decide to go to major centres, and I am not always satisfied that this is in their best interest because of the fact that to a great degree they then lose their identity.
There is one other aspect of this bill which I am concerned about, and that is we must exercise a great deal of care to ensure we do not encourage people to come here and become second class citizens. In view of the affluence Canada and Canadians have been enjoying, there is a tendency not to want to do those jobs we feel are beneath our dignity. I have never been one to condone this attitude. I have always felt that a person should never ask someone else to do something he would not do himself. If we as Canadians were to adopt that philosophy, I think we would have a great deal more to offer the people of the world. It is a dangerous policy for us-but it is the policy at the present time-to allow people to come in and fill the positions we as Canadians are not prepared to fill.
I realize that there have to be some guidelines, but we must also realize that we have to exercise a great deal of care so that we do not develop a group of second class citizens. We have seen what has happened to our neighbours south of the border over the years with regard to their importation of labour. This really concerns me because it takes hundreds of years to overcome the effect of this aspect of immigration policy. I know that in many parts of Canada, especially in southern Ontario, large groups of immigrants are brought in to do the work we Canadians are not prepared to do.
It used to be that in Canada we would move people back and forth across our land. People from the west would go east, and vice-versa. Many workers from eastern Canada would move west, perhaps for year round work, or perhaps it would only be seasonal work. I well remember as a boy on a farm that we always relied on the help which came from Ontario in taking off the harvest, something which I thought was wonderful. However, when we start bringing in people from other nations we have to exercise a great deal of care. I hope the government takes notice of this to ensure that we do not become dependent upon other people to do the things for us which we are not prepared to do for ourselves. We must also have something to offer those people who come to our borders asking for admittance, wishing to become Canadian citizens. That way there will always be a place in the scheme of things for Canada and Canadians.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some brief remarks with respect to this bill. I know the minister is anxious to get it before committee and I am always one to accommodate the minister in that kind of aim, as I have done in the past.
I think there is an analogy between what is proposed here and the attitude toward the American revolution. The Americans went through a revolution in order to obtain

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
nationhood, and it has often been remarked that since then they have been trying to prevent revolutions with the same objectives in other parts of the world. It seems to me that when we consider this legislation we have to consider it in the light of other legislation in this country, particularly that which pertains to immigration.
Some of the changes proposed in the legislation seem to be an attempt by the government to make up to new Canadians, to give them something they did not have before, but there is a restrictive side to it that I prophesy will have the effect of preventing people coming to this country more than is presently the case. An attitude seems, therefore, to be developing that while most of use are now in Canada through the process of immigration ourselves or by our forefathers, in future we will tend to limit immigration to our shores.
One of the provisions of the bill would reduce the period of qualification for citizenship from five years to three years. Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, this is an arbitrary decision; it is difficult to say that either period is appropriate. I would suggest that the only purpose of this bill is the political motivation of the government, which is receiving a considerable amount of representation from people newly arrived in the country who have families in other parts of the world and want them here. To a great degree these people are unhappy about some of the legislative plans of the government. Instead of this questionably magnanimous gesture reducing the qualification period, the government would be well advised to consider its over-all policy, and to be frank with the people of Canada about its intentions in regard to new Canadians.
In light of the green paper on immigration it seems to me that we must expect a restrictive type of regulation. Also, there have been recent developments in the area of mul-ticulturalism vis-a-vis newly arrived persons in our country. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) of late has gone around the country indicating that the government is taking new and different directions in regard to the mul-ticulturalism program. He wishes to change the policy to provide for more emphasis on anti-discrimination and communicating understanding. This indicates that the government has been under some pressure from people who have just come to Canada about the problems of discrimination and lack of understanding that they face.
This reduction of the qualification period from five years to three, and the unusual step of allowing a portion of the time spent in Canada illegally to be counted as part of the total time required for citizenship, seem to be gestures made for the purpose of ingratiating the government with people newly arrived.
Some interpretations of the provisions indicate that half of the total time a person is in the country illegally will count toward the citizenship requirement, but really the clause that deals with this is rather convoluted. As I read clause 5, a maximum of one year is to be allowed in the computation for citizenship. Be that as it may, I think we must hear something more from the minister about the government's motive for this rather novel proposition. If it thinks three years is appropriate then it should explain to us the necessity to have the illegal residence in Canada counted toward the requirement of citizenship. Sometimes people come into the country illegally through desperation,
and indeed in some cases it is possibly the only way they could come. I think I understand the background in many such cases, and perhaps relief should be given to them sometimes. It strikes me that this is a rather peculiar provision to have in statute form, and that the government could find other measures to deal with the situation.


An hon. Member:: Like what?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 
Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? Does he suggest that, in the case of a student who is in this country under a student's visa and studies here, say, for four or five years, that we should not include some of his time in this country as coming within the three year provision? That, really, is at stake in this clause, not the sort of illegality to which the hon. member referred.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is a matter of interpretation. The minister may interpret the clause as he pleases and suggest that it refers to students, and so on. My reading of the clause-and I shall be interested to hear the minister's interpretation and the interpretation of his legal advisers-suggests that its application is far broader and that it is not limited exclusively to students, as the minister seems to indicate. If the intent of the clause is as the minister suggests, why does he not put it in explicit terms, instead of in general terms which lend themselves to misinterpretation? Why does he not say that the clause is restricted to students?
I said I would keep my presentation brief on some aspects of the bill. I hope the minister will answer some questions in committee. At the same time I compliment the minister, just to show that I am not against all the provisions of the bill, as obviously some of its provisions meet with our approval and consent, and deserve our support. This being International Women's Year it is only fit and proper that we should provide equality of treatment for women.
I am glad to note that the status of wives will not necessarily depend on the nationality or fate of their spouses. This is an appropriate forward step, especially in International Women's Year. I suggest that the minister should confer with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras), in order to discuss a similar provision whereby a woman may apply for landed immigrant status in some reasonable cases without being bound by the intentions of her husband in this regard. We ought to examine the law in this area, and make sure it is consistent. God knows, it is little use asking the government to be consistent. Nevertheless it ought to be consistent in the areas of immigration and citizenship, which are closely related and intertwined.

December 8, 1975

When the minister closes debate on second reading I hope he will explain in detail the motivation behind this legislation and what induced him to substitute one arbitrary period of residency for another. Finally, what is the government's position with respect to clause 5? We need to know it, in order to study the bill adequately in committee and again in the House when it returns for third reading.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, a man's citizenship was of utmost importance to him in the days of Greece and Rome. Those concepts of citizenship have guided many nations, including our own, and ought to guide us as we change the laws pertaining to citizenship.
Most in this House know of the great status attaching to Roman citizenship in the days of the Roman empire. A man's status as a citizen of Rome was an honour which made itself felt in every part of the then known world. Let us remember these lessons of history. Then, after the Roman empire, came the British Commonwealth of Nations. If you were a citizen of the Commonwealth you were a citizen of the United Kingdom, and had the right to move freely within the British Commonwealth. That was an important advantage and made available to the British citizen, or Commonwealth citizen, important services at home and abroad. Let us keep these examples in mind when considering laws to change citizenship status. Let us, at the same time, reflect on the value of our citizenship.
I hope the government will not be inflexible, will not insist on passing the bill, clause by clause, exactly as written. I hope amendments will be moved. Although certain parts of it are a step in the right direction, other parts of the omnibus bill are not as beneficial to Canadian citizens as they might be.
The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) went to some length to explain aspects of the bill which he thought were good. Now I must raise certain questions. Actually my first question was raised by the previous speaker, who referred to clause (5)(l)(b)(i) which, purportedly, has to do with students. He did not find its language acceptable. How will that language apply, for example, to refugees, a large number of whom Canada has accepted? I do not quarrel with this. Such people have been allowed entry. But what about the many other people who are constantly being discovered in Canada, who have not come in legally in the proper fashion? Will this clause apply to them, as well as to students?
My reason for asking is simple. In order to become a landed immigrant, one must apply abroad. This means that those who did not apply abroad for entry are at present illegally in Canada, regardless of their present status as dishwashers, students, or anything else. Any provision allowing such people to apply for landed immigrant status within Canada negates this legislation, which says that the application must be made outside Canada. There is an inherent contradiction in our legislation in this area which we must consider carefully. Apparently one act of parliament virtually negates the effect of the other proposed legislation. I do not think that is intentional.


Mr. Benjamin:: What has that to do with citizenship?


Fred Alward McCain: Almost without exception we are citizens of Canada either because we emigrated or because our
Citizenship
ancestors came here. Most of us are descendants of immigrants to this country, immigrants from one part of the world. There are few exceptions. Those who came to Canada made this a fine country. Therefore we have a responsibility to those who are in Canada, and to those who are or will be applying for citizenship.
Citizenship is not a right of any individual other than by birth. It is not a right which has to be granted because an individual makes application to come to our shores. It is in fact a privilege. It is a privilege which has ministerial discretion to guide how and when he can grant this extension of privilege called citizenship.
The purpose of a term of eligibility is obvious. It is necessary for the country granting citizenship to have some time to appraise the individual who has come, and to determine whether in fact that person should be given his citizenship. This should be regardless of his linguistic capabilities and regardless of his knowledge of our geography, but certainly not regardless of whether he is prepared to assume the responsibilities of citizenship and whether he is in fact a builder who will add to our structure of Canada.
Five years is not too long to assess this. We can show many cases in this country where people who have come to our shores for what appeared to be the intention of being Canadians have in fact become the centre of some of the areas of discord in this country, to put it mildly, which have caused great concern to Canadian citizens at large.
It is of particular importance at this moment in time that the government should give very careful consideration to the five year term. Again I refer to some of the people who have come here under forced circumstances, whom we have accepted under forced circumstances, and who should prove to us that they want to be Canadian citizens and a part of this nation. They did not come here of their own volition. They came here because of expulsion or to escape prosecution, and because we opened our doors. That prosecution may have been from a government of any flavour in this world because we have not been discriminatory in the acceptance of refugees into our country.
I submit that this nation and the minister in charge of this department need some time to evaluate some of the people who have come to this country. It is quite all right for some to say that this is being discriminatory. However, not a single person has ever said to me that he should have obtained his citizenship in five years.
I come from a community which in the last 40 years has received probably 25 per cent of its population as a result of immigration. Not a single one of them has ever complained to me about the period of time required to acquire citizenship.
There is another facet that, on behalf of the immigrant applying for citizenship, should be carefully considered. The clause which says you cannot have dual citizenship in Canada eliminates the possibility of being a Canadian and American citizen, a Canadian and a British citizen, or a Canadian and a French citizen. That is a trend everywhere in the world.

December 8, 1975
Citizenship
As near as I can tell, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, if a Canadian goes abroad and for any reason loses his citizenship, he then has to apply as any other world citizen would have to apply to come to Canada. The same will apply to those immigrants who come to Canada and obtain citizenship here. They are not going to be able to hold Canadian and American, Canadian and Portuguese, or Canadian and Dutch citizenship simultaneously. If by some inadvertence they have made a wrong choice in their three-year period, they may find themselves in serious difficulty if at any point in time they wish to return to the land of their birth or the land from which they came. Under those circumstances I do not think five years is too long.
There are some aspects of changes in citizenship legislation which are pertinent to Canada and which follow the pattern of other countries. Holland, for example, is in a unique position at the moment. Recent press reports have told about their problem with the arrival of people from what at one time was their empire. People held Dutch citizenship in the same way that people held citizenship in the British Commonwealth. Those who were citizens of the Dutch structure held Dutch citizenship and had free access to Holland.
It is a very forward and proper step that this country cannot be inundated by an influx of people from any part of the world any more readily than it can from any other part of the world under the present structure of citizenship and immigration. In that sense there has been something acquired in the consideration of these two items.
I very strongly urge the minister to give serious consideration to clause 5(1) (b) (i), both for the sake of Canada and for the sake of the immigrant. I think I speak with a concern for both. Changing the eligibility from five years to three should be reconsidered. That is not a step which gives the landed immigrant any particular advantage other than voting privileges. It reduces the necessary time which any citizen court or minister might require before extending to an applicant the very important and highly privileged rank of citizen.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the government House leader saw fit to bring on this bill for consideration by this parliament at this time. I can think of nothing more important on the list of legislation that we must consider before Christmas, having regard to what remains on the order paper and the progress that has been made thus far. It is an unusual example of his foresight with respect to the legislative priorities of the country that he has seen fit, so close to Christmas, to bring forward to this House this important piece of legislation.
I am very happy that the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) are in the chamber this evening because there is, within this general field about which we are talking, an interrelationship with their responsibility.
I suppose there was a time in the history of our country when upon coming to Canada, taking a working position, and being involved in the cultural life of this growing country, the matter of citizenship was not nearly as important as it is today. But we are debating this bill in a world

which is changing, a world which is becoming less and less democratic, a world in which people are pressured by over-population and diminishing agricultural production, resulting in starvation in many areas.
The number of democratic regimes is being diminished day by day; Canada is one of the few nations left in the world which believes in the democratic process, which is healthy and strong, which can allow debate such as this to go on, with different points of view being interchanged. This is a very attractive situation for increasing numbers of people and I believe that, as a result, over the next 20 years or so this country will find itself bearing the brunt of pressures in terms of the movement of people from other parts of the world. That is what makes the bill before us so important; that is why parliament should consider the whole question of citizenship with a great deal of care.
We are extending, by the offer of citizenship, the right to participate in a strong, healthy, and vital society. That is why this statute is important and that is why I want to thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) for bringing this legislation forward.
There are provisions in this statute which concern me. Other speakers have mentioned that a period of time one might call unauthorized time, as far as the statute is concerned can be allowed in certain circumstances, at least to a limited extent, whether the final period be three years or five years. This is important if the required time is to be reduced to three years because it makes the full period all the more important. I am not arguing now whether the period should be three years or five years; I will come to that issue, perhaps a little later.
The statute as presented, notwithstanding the minister's explanation, does within the ambit of its wording allow for time spent illegally in this country. In my view this does a disservice to many people who, aware of the rules qualified to come to this country under a very generous immigration policy, served out the period of time required, and were successful in obtaining citizenship. I think we ought to take a hard look at this aspect of the bill, and perhaps amend it in committee.
The reason why I think this is important is that I have discussed the bill with a number of immigrant groups in my constituency. We often hear about immigrants in western Canada, in northern Canada, and in the larger centres of population. But in this city, Ottawa, which ostensibly moves on a bi-cultural and bilingual axis, there is a large and growing immigration population.
I have made a point of sitting down with several groups representing people of various ethnic origins, some of whose members are landed immigrants, and asking their views with respect to this clause. It is the vagueness of this clause which has disturbed many of the people who have spoken to me about it, and which has disturbed me as well as a number of other members of the House. The present debate is an important occasion in terms of considering this right to participate in one of the free democratic societies in the world.
There is one other aspect I should like to deal with, and it has to do with the citizenship courts. It has been my privilege in the course of practising law in the national
December 8, 1975

capital to know a number of the citizenship judges who have taken their place in this aspect of the public service.
I want to mention a former judge, Mr. John Dawson, who happens to be a constituent of mine. He was an appointee of the government of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert. I also wish to call to the attention of the House the service which has been rendered to the whole field of citizenship and its importance in the scheme of things by Mr. Paul Tardiff, who at one time was a member of the House of Commons and who, if my memory serves me correctly, was appointed by the late Mr. Lester Pearson. Both these men have done a tremendous job, and it has been my privilege to sit in both their counts from time to time and watch the proceedings.
I believe it is important that the role of the citizenship court should not be downgraded. I have spoken to people who have appeared before these judges and they tell me that one of the most impressive and important days in their lives was when they appeared in a courtroom before a citizenship judge and passed the test. It was an emotional day for them in terms of their feelings for the country of their adoption. There seems to be an element in this statute which puts the functions of the citizenship court judge a little to one side, and substitutes therefor the functioning of the bureaucracy. This is one matter which ought to be examined. I have talked to many in this city, about which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) speaks in such florid terms, who were impressed by the work of the court.
May I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House would consent not to see the clock so that we could proceed with the consideration of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: No


Walter David Baker: May I call it ten o'clock, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because of a question I asked last Wednesday, December 3. My oral question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), was answered by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). As reported at page 9682 I asked:
It-
Adjournment Debate
That is, my question.
-pertains to the reported intention of the government to increase the price of passports issued to Canadian citizens from $10 to $12. Is this the government's intention, or policy, and if so how can the increase be justified?
The minister answered:
The question is under consideration. Any increase would be justified by the increased cost of supplying passports.
As a supplementary I asked:
Since the reported increase would amount to 20 per cent, thus exceeding the guidelines laid down by the Minister of Finance, how can such an increase be justified?
The minister replied:
The guidelines do not speak about percentages in the case of prices or fees. They talk about prices reflecting increases in costs. That is how we would justify any increase we might make.
What a lot of hypocrisy there was in the minister's last response! Right there they say, "Do as we say, but you cannot do as we do".
There are a few points I want to make in rebuttal of the answers I received to this seemingly insignificant and innocent little question. The acting minister said any increase would be justified by the increased cost of supplying passports. The country's passport office here in Ottawa never was a profit-making service. How are the actual costs increasing? No more than usual. True, the clerks are getting more money than they were five years ago, but they are also issuing more passports. The fees charged by an office of this kind should remain constant. They were originally statutory, but I do not believe the department should be allowed to raise the price at this time, especially considering the serious condition the country is in financially, primarily because of inflation.
I can point to other offices in this country to demonstrate my point that passports now being granted to Canadian citizens for $10 should remain at that price. It is not very long ago that they were only $5, but this is Liberalism, Mr. Speaker, Liberalism in action. The main thing they are noted for is being liberal with other people's money. In this vicious escalation of prices and fees there is one class of fees that should not rise, and that is government fees for documents of the nature that we are discussing this evening-passports.
Related to tbe point I am making, I was very pleased the other day when I visited the county registry office of the county of Lennox and Addington in Napanee, where I live. I wanted to search the registry concerning certain property, and when the service had been performed for me by the clerk in charge I asked her how much that would be, and she said 50 cents. That price has remained the same for 50 years, Mr. Speaker, yet the county level of government of Napanee also has increased costs the same as Ottawa. There is far more activity in the county registry, far more real estate activity that takes care of higher costs.
The same thing is happening in the Department of External Affairs. Any member of parliament in this House will tell you Mr. Speaker, that his or her requests from constituents for passport servicing are increasing by leaps and bounds. I hope the minister does not include the cost of the new "Taj Mahal" housing external affairs at Sussex Drive when he mentions increased costs. That is another

December 8, 1975
Adjournment Debate
place where the Liberal government was very liberal with the taxpayers' money. I am informed that the Lester B. Pearson building cost about $40 million. Of course it was not built for the sole purpose of issuing passports. Therefore the passport office should be left to perform its duties without increasing fees.
Getting back to increased costs, if costs have increased they must have been included in this year's estimates. A further increase in the fees to citizens requiring passports is a dual levy or double taxation. The taxpayers of Canada have paid increased costs, and now those requiring passports are not only paying their share of increased costs in the budget but a 20 per cent increase in fees for passports as well. How reckless can the government get with other people's money?
There is another point I must make too. This week we are currently debating Bill C-20, the citizenship bill. Bill C-20 is not a good bill. It is liberalizing our immigration policy in many ways to would-be immigrants to this country, making it easier to obtain citizenship at a time when this legislation would not be good for the economic and social well being of our troubled country. The point I make is one that shows the inconsistencies of Liberal policy. This current citizenship legislation favours the immigrant, but the policies of the government in increasing the cost of passports penalizes the full-fledged Canadian citizen, whether he be a citizen by birth or by immigration, to the extent of 20 per cent in additional costs, grossly exceeding the guidelines laid down by the recent controls.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the majority of Canadians all across our country today are asking who is in control. In today's Ottawa Journal we see the headline: "Canadians in favor of Controls-Survey". It states that support for controls is growing, along with discontent. If we are to have control of retail consumer prices and control of the price of services, we must have control rigidly practised in government, yes, right down to the price of passports.
Another point, Mr. Speaker, is that each year there is a greater ratio of our passports issued to students travelling in groups, through schools and universities, on tours of other countries. This is the youth segment of our society, least able to afford increased fees for government documents. But at the same time they are the segment most in need of building their experiences and developing their education. Therefore why penalize them another 20 per cent increase in the cost of their passports?
This is a timely topic tonight. This question has exposed the government's hypocrisy and duplicity. The government is saying to the people who administer the controls, "We'll tell you what to do, and what you can or cannot do, but we, the government, will do what we like".
Well, Mr. Speaker, the government will not get away with this arrogant and cavalier policy. Controls can be made to work, and the first place the government should start is right here in Ottawa. I say to the Prime Minister and whoever is answering for him and/or the Department of External Affairs tonight on this question-cut out your contempt for your guidelines. Let us start by holding the price of passports issued to Canadian citizens at the present satisfactory price of $10, and show the Canadian people that the government can practise what it preaches in its doctrine of monetary restraints.


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have a certain difficulty in understanding the line of reasoning in the speech made by the honourable gentleman. He spoke at the same time of the Taj Mahal and the arrogance of the policy in Bill C-20. Let me put the honourable member straight in respect of Bill C-20 first of all. It is a good bill, and if I had been the minister responsible I venture to say I would have submitted to the House a reduction to two years from five years for the obtaining of citizenship.
Returning to the problem raised concerning the increased cost of passports may I say that the passport office is a non-profit agency operating on a revolving fund basis, and required to meeting operating expenses from the revenue generated from passport fees. When it became evident early this year that current passport fees would not be sufficient to cover future operating costs beginning with 1975-76-and I do not think I need go into the detail for the honourable gentleman-the passport office sought and received Treasury Board authority to increase the fee to $15 beginning January 1, 1976.
The objective was to develop a fee structure that would recover costs averaged over at least five years to avoid annual or more regular increases that bring substantial new fee introductory costs, estimated at $140,000, and delays and service inconvenience to the public.
When the fee was last increased in 1969 a large majority of the public were either not aware of or ignored the new price and submitted applications with the old fee. This necessitated correspondence with applicants, which in turn delayed passport issuance and created serious public inconvenience to the point that normal passport service was seriously disrupted for a period of months. I do not think my colleague opposite would like to see that happen again. To avoid a recurrence of this situation the objective is to stabilize the fee for as long a period of time as possible and to advertise extensively any changes.
When the anti-inflation guidelines were announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on October 14, 1975, it was agreed to scale the fee change down to $12 beginning March 1, 1976, to conform with the government's policy, notwithstanding the additional costs and public inconvenience that would be created unfortunately by having to increase the fee again in less than two years. I think that is enough to say, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SUGGESTED RELOCATION OF PROPOSED PIGGYBACK TERMINAL IN WINNIPEG
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour once again to rise to debate with the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), who always promises he will check into my queries and provide an answer, but from whom so far I have never received any answers.
On December 3 I put a question with regard to the CNR locating a piggyback terminal on Wilkes Avenue in south west Winnipeg. This subject has been debated at length at the municipal level for over a year, and the local Community committee and residents are thoroughly opposed to a
December 8, 1975

piggyback terminel being located so close to the residential area.
There are now two additional reasons why the terminal should not be located on Wilkes Avenue. Last week the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) announced a $436,000 loan for the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation for the purchase of land for housing west of the proposed piggyback terminal. A housing development and a piggyback terminal adjacent to one another are in no way compatible. There will be heavy truck traffic in the area as well as diesel engines shunting box cars, and no doubt the terminal will have to expand in the future, thus compounding the problem. Second, the city of Winnipeg agreed last Thursday to send a telegram to the federal government to register the city's position and to ask that an order in council permitting the construction of the terminal be rescinded.
I feel that the federal government is setting a bad example in this case, as apparently there has not been proper consultation between CNR, the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Urban Affairs, and the Department of the Environment.
The Department of the Environment does environment impact studies on any new federal government developments, and I believe this piggyback terminal was its first project under a new order in council calling for an environmental study on new developments. I would say that the Department of the Environment is off to a bad start on its first project. In their report its officials state:
The currently underdeveloped area west of Kenaston may be affected by sound emission from the proposed terminal.
We now find that a 220 acre housing development by the federal government is to be built. No doubt hundreds of children will reside in the development, and there will be danger to them from the heavy traffic generated by the terminal. The Department of the Environment should now review its study. Also, the area north of the proposed site contains $1.25 million of installed services for housing. Further services at a cost of $1.50 million will shortly be installed. Present plans call for housing developments to extend right up to the CNR mainline which is adjacent to the piggyback terminal.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary can see by now that this is no place for a piggyback freight terminal, and I hope he will impress this upon the minister and have him instruct CNR to look for a more suitable location. CPR was allowed to construct a freight terminal adjacent to a residential area in north Winnipeg some years ago and has since expanded, and the traffic and noise are unbearable.
Another reason why the terminal should not be located on Wilkes Avenue is that the main artery to the terminal at Kenaston Boulevard has already 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the traffic it can bear during peak periods, and the addition of tractor-trailors going to and from the piggyback terminal would make the traffic flow situation impossible.
Also, a number of residential subdivisions are to be built off Kenaston Boulevard, and a neighbourhood shopping centre is to be built to accommodate these housing de-
Adjournment Debate
velopments. It is becoming more and more apparent that a piggyback freight terminal will not blend into the area for very obvious reasons.
The total number of residential units to be built in the immediate area is approximately 2,198, bringing the total population of the area of 73.3 acres to between 5,000 and
6,000	people. So you can see that CNR and the Department of the Environment have done no long range planning.
In addition, the Fort Garry-Saint Vital Bridge has just been approved and will be extended to Lagimodiere Boulevard and Kenaston Boulevard, making it possible for the trans-Canada highway to be routed up Kenaston on completion of the bridge.
In a city of Winnipeg traffic study dated 1973 it is stated that Kenaston and Grant regional streets will be incapable of absorbing future growth due to Kenaston Estates housing development being completed in 1983. This report did not take into consideration the piggyback or the Fort Garry-Saint Vital bridge traffic on Kenaston. Also, a small herd of white tailed deer is known to inhabit Assiniboia Forrest Park and areas adjacent to the terminal. Housing developments will be less harmful to them than engines shunting freight cars.
Any way we look at it the CNR proposed site was a short sighted choice. Within a few years the surrounding area will be developed residentially, and pressure will mount to have the terminal moved out. It would be better not to put it there in the first place. Locating the piggyback near the west perimeter highway would be much more acceptable to the local residents, and much more desirable for truckers who would then not have to fight bumper to bumper traffic.
I strongly suggest the four ministers involved, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), who should have received the telegram from the city of Winnipeg requesting that the terminal be relocated, should instruct CNR to act accordingly in the name of sensible, long range planning to protect the citizens of the area.
I also understand there has been similar poor planning in the Edmonton area where rail terminals have been allowed to locate in residential areas. Hon. members will be hearing more of this in the near future.
In closing I should like to say that the local residents advisory group chairman, Mrs. Donna Mae Yeo, said at the most recent hearing that CNR officials presented half facts which were beneficial to them, leaving out those which were detrimental.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), and I are becoming regular partners at this particular point in the proceedings of the House, and I welcome the opportunity of responding to one of his concerns again this evening. As I begin, I draw to his attention the answer which the minister gave to him on this point in this House just a very few days ago when he first raised it, and that was that the minister would be happy to engage in consul-

December 8, 1975
Adjournment Debate
tations about the problem the hon. member has raised, but the minister did not think it was appropriate to rush immediately to conclusions before those consultations had in fact begun. So I am a little hesitant tonight to proceed much farther down the road upon which the hon. member has embarked because, in a very real sense, that would be prejudging the conclusion to any particular consultations which may be undertaken.
However, I should like to explain the situation as it was known to CNR and to the ministry prior to the most recent development which the hon. member has mentioned. First, I should mention that the CNR main line through Winnipeg passes by the Canadian forces base between Kenas-ton and Wilkes Avenue. At present there are no residences within one quarter to one half a mile from that line. The area in question has been zoned for heavy industry. The CN development has been categorized as light industry. A federal government environmental study has been completed, and it recommended approval of the location as having no deleterious impact on the community. On this basis the federal order in council was passed.
A noise level study was conducted in the area, and the level at the proposed yard was found to be lower than on the streets of the Tuxedo area. The city of Winnipeg committee of the environment approved the location in 1974. The CN has investigated alternate sites, none of which has been found to meet the requirements of either the railway or the community. The CN has entered into a lease with the owner of the land selected.
My hon. friend invited the minister just a very few days ago to engage in further consultations with respect to this particular point. The minister has agreed to do so, and I do not think further comment should be made at this moment.


Mr. Paproski:: That's what they said in Edmonton.


A. Daniel McKenzie: The environmental study is outdated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:22 p.m.


END OP VOLUME IX