1976-04-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that an individual who committed a $750,000 fraud got only a one day sentence before the Quebec courts, while another individual got 8 years imprisonment for a $2,000 fraud about a week ago; considering that the big swindler is a rich businessman while the small one is only an ordinary citizen; and considering that those decisions show that citizens are not all equal before the law, the rich people being favoured, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House instruct the Minister of Justice to table before the House a bill aimed at establishing a specific schedule of penalties in the case of fraud, so that the sentence would be directly related to the gravity of the fraud, to see that judges impose penalties which are not based on the thickness of the swindler's wallet but on the gravity of the fraud.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provision of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that reports have indicated that the Canadian government has narrowed its
search for a new armoured car for our armed forces to two countries, they being Brazil and Switzerland, and in view of the fact that the Department of National Defence is reported to have issued a report to Treasury Board recommending the Swiss Piranha model over the Brazilian Urutu, but that this recommendation was blocked by people in the Latin American Division of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and in view of the fact that the decision to purchase the Brazilian model would not only encourage a vicious military dictatorship in Brazil but would cost Canadian workers jobs since the Swiss model would be built in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Canadian government through its departments stop any consideration or negotiations now going on concerning the purchase of Brazilian armoured cars.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move under Standing Order 43 a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, namely:
That the decision taken to establish a permanent type work camp on the property of Scott Maritimes Pulp Limited at Apple River in Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, be rescinded and that the Canadian penitentiary Service immediately undertake further consultation with the citizens of Apple River, Advocate and area and only move forward with the establishment of the camp if they have the consent of the citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

Northern Affairs NORTHERN AFFAIRS


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF DECISION ON PERMITS TO DRILL IN BEAUFORT SEA PENDING COMMITTEE STUDY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. It has just been announced that the government will make a final decision on offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea on Thursday, April 22, at a time when the House is recessed. This parliament has been given no chance to examine this proposal to date and we are now faced with the sleazy and arrogant intention to announce a government decision when the House is in recess and members of parliament have no opportunity to respond in this House, which is both their right and duty to the people of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the government's action of announcing its decision on offshore drilling in the Beaufort Sea while the House is in recess, and demands that the decision be postponed until the matter is referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
On December 11, 1975, I put on the order paper questions concerning the imports of broilers and poultry. After over four months, I am still waiting for a reply. Yet, bulletin No. 14 on poultry markets dated April 9, 1976, published by Agriculture Canada, market production division, advises us that in the first quarter of 1976 alone, poultry imports amounted to 6,786,392 pounds, exactly three times the imports in the corresponding period in 1975. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this important matter be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Trade and Commerce, with a view to limiting the massive import quotas of poultry or broilers which decidedly threaten the economic survival of thousands of poultry producers as well as Agriculture Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman now inform the House of the details of his rather lengthy meeting with Commissioner Nadon and other' members of the RCMP yesterday afternoon regarding the Sky Shops affair and, in particular, the conduct of any ministerial aides or other persons involved in negotiations or representations regarding Sky Shops interests?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of request made by the opposition, I had a meeting yesterday with the commissioner of the RCMP. I want to make it clear to the House that I am only reporting on this meeting in so far as it might have had any bearing on anything concerning members of my government, in other words, ministers. So far as other people might be concerned, I shall not entertain questions on that. I think the House will understand the RCMP conducted investigations. They have turned over their files to the provincial attorney general. If charges are to issue, they will come from that source. I think this indicates the wisdom of the practice of the government, and of the Solicitor General in the past, of refusing to give any details of investigations which might be initiated or which might be in course. This is obviously needed as a protection to innocent people.
This having been said, I want to say that the RCMP report to the provincial attorney general does not recommend that charges be laid against any member of the government. Any further information, I repeat, will have to wait the laying of charges, if any are to be laid, against whom and in what circumstances.


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-POSSIBILITY OF COMPLEMENTARY INQUIRY-BY WHOM REQUESTED
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his answer. In view of statements made by a senior Quebec Justice Department official with regard to the implementation of a so-called complementary inquiry from the RCMP into the Sky Shops affair, did Commissioner Nadon or anyone else inform the Prime Minister of the details of such an investigation supposedly requested of the RCMP? If so, can he inform the House as to the purpose, nature and terms of reference of such an inquiry and who requested an inquiry of this nature?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as of yesterday afternoon when I met the Commissioner, there had been no notice or knowledge of any such

inquiry. Today is the first time I have heard of it. I heard of it about an hour ago. I am not aware of what is referred to in that news report. I do know there will likely be a pre-inquiry, a pre-enquete, which is general procedure before laying charges. However, I have no understanding of what is alleged by the hon. member. I have no knowledge of it.


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-POSSIBILITY PEARSON GUIDELINES VIOLATED BY MINISTERIAL AIDES
Mr. Elmer  Mr. MacKay@Central Nova: Without giving details, is the Prime Minister satisfied as a result of his meeting yesterday that the guidelines promulgated by Mr. Pearson with regard to ministerial aides have not been violated? If he is not satisfied, what action will he be taking or what instructions will he be giving?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it quite clear in my answer that I was reporting on ministerial conduct. I am pleased to say that what I told the House last week as a result of speaking to the ministers has been confirmed by the RCMP and they are not recommending that any charges be laid against any minister. In so far as other people are concerned, I want to repeat what I said earlier. I think the House can understand that citizens in this country are presumed innocent until found guilty. I do not see why the opposition or any other member of the public would want to know who is being investigated, why and what the results might be.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond by asking a question about what the right hon. gentleman has raised. I remind him that on page two of Prime Minister Pearson's letter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a final supplementary he should put the question.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Is the Prime Minister in agreement with the short excerpt I propose to put to him from the guidelines of the late Prime Minister Pearson. On page two of his famous letter of November 30, 1964, he said and I quote:
There are several things that should be stressed. The central one is that a Minister's staff must be subject to exactly the same high code of conduct that is recognized for Ministers themselves.
My question is simply this. Does the right hon. Prime Minister still adhere to this statement of philosophy and guideline set out by his famous predecessor?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I gave this answer yesterday or at the end of last week. The answer was yes, I do agree with that. However, the hon. member should reflect that perhaps there should be guidelines for members of the public or of the opposition wanting to find out about investigations into people by police and the damage that this can cause.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Another red herring!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope there will be some respect shown for the reputations of innocent people by the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: A question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that we are now running at the worst sustained rate of unemployment since the recession of 1961-there has been a paltry drop of .1 per cent compared with last month-a rate which, with the sole exception of the United States, has in the last year run consistently ahead of every other major western country in the world, is the government at long last planning to reduce this 700,000 figure of unemployment which is so harmful both in human terms and to the economy?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: quite agree with the hon. member that unemployment takes a very heavy toll both of individuals and of firms in Canada. It was for that reason, for the purpose both of reducing the rate of inflation and fighting any increase in the rate of unemployment, that the government brought forward a set of mandatory controls. We had hoped, in bringing this program forward, that we would have had the support of the hon. gentleman. So far, it has been withheld.


John Edward Broadbent: We did not support it, precisely because we said it would lead to sustained high rates of unemployment. Given the fact that unemployment in the Atlantic provinces continues to run at a rate higher than the rest of the country-it was up again last month in terms of the national average-has the government any particular plans for people in that part of the country who remain so unfairly treated in terms of employment opportunities?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me that the gentleman has just contradicted himself. He has referred to the fact that the period of unemployment pre-existed the controls and he said he opposed them because they would have created unemployment. He cannot have it both ways.


John Edward Broadbent: That answer is even more stupid than usual from the minister. Would he now deal with the fact that among those unemployed, women show a disproportionate rate of increase running some 20 per cent ahead of men while the rate of unemployed young people is about 100 per cent above the national average? Would the minister kindly remove the smirk from his face and tell the House what he plans to do about those two groups of unemployed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I notice that when the hon. member becomes most abusive and shouts loudest he is on the weakest ground of all.

April 13, 1976
Oral Questions


PROPOSAL THAT UNEMPLOYED BE USED ON PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, who has just replied virulently to the leader of the New Democratic Party concerning unemployed Canadians.
Is the minister not considering or is he not tempted to consider hiring the unemployed who are available for work and, instead of giving them unemployment insurance benefits, paying them more for the work they could do in various fields, like building the roads we need in Canada, and the public buildings which are not built because of the government's restrictions? Would it not be to the advantage of the government, the department and Canada to hire these unemployed and pay them decent wages, and thus at the same time develop the country and avoid heavy expenditures like unemployment insurance in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall point out to the hon. member that in Quebec, for instance, there were 25,000 fewer unemployed last month. Regarding supplementary expenditures for building, I must say that we have found that the government must control its expenses. That means we cannot spend more money for special programs, as my colleague the President of the Treasury Board has announced. For these reasons, we expect a resumption of economic activity in Canada this spring and summer, and significant reductions of the unemployment rate.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister tells us that he must control public spending in Canada. I agree with him on this point. However, we cannot anticipate the number of people who will be unemployed next month or next week. Thus the government does not control anything at all. So my question is the following: if we cannot control the increase in the rate of unemployment-and when the minister says there were 25,000 fewer unemployed in the province of Quebec, I do not think of Quebec alone, but of Canada as a whole, and in the whole of Canada unemployment is on the rise-then I ask the minister this question: rather than not being able to control these spendings, let us pay those who are actually unemployed, that is, why does not the government consider the possibility of hiring them and paying them normal wages, which would allow to have something done, while nothing is being done right now and yet money is spent on the unemployed just the same?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada has suggested such a plan. It would consist in revising the unemployment insurance program in such a way as to prevent unemployment from going up in Canada. We are considering this suggestion and my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, will inform the House of the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM THE SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before beginning another round of questioning I know hon. members on both sides of the House would want to join with me in welcoming in our gallery the presence of the very distinguished delegation from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, led by their most distinguished vice-president, General Peko Dapcevic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and is based on the recent press release of the RCMP staff relations committee which states that the Solicitor General has lost credibility. In view of the fact that the minister has yet to make any statement respecting his willingness or otherwise to implement any of the recommendations of the Marin report or that any tangible steps will be taken to improve his rapport with the force, when will the Solicitor General take such steps to demonstrate to the RCMP that he is a credible leader and what steps is the government intending to take to improve morale in the force generally?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I reject, of course, the statements made by the staff relations group or the division representatives. With respect to implementation of the Marin report, I was in Regina last week to discuss this matter with them and they asked me for a delay because they said they were not ready to discuss it.


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-POSSIBILITY OF IMPROPRIETIES BY MINISTERIAL AIDES WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO DISMISSAL
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since matters such as the Sky Shops affair have a direct bearing on morale in the force, and assuming the minister listened to the reply of the Prime Minister to the question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova, could the Solicitor General inform us in connection with the reports of the RCMP that were obviously disclosed to the Prime Minister, whether any improprieties existed on the part of ministerial aides, and I am not asking for names? Did any improprieties exist that were something short of an illegality which would not give rise to the laying of charges, but falling within the guidelines of the late Prime Minister Pearson as being conduct reprehensive enough to warrant these ministerial aides being dismissed?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I met with the RCMP commanding officers and the division representatives they mentioned several things
April 13, 1976

that were of interest to them, but Sky Shops was not one of them. Nor was there any mention of the other matters for investigation raised by hon. members opposite. In respect of the second part of the hon. member's question, the RCMP did not mention that there was any conduct or document relating to a minister or ministerial aid that they found to be illegal or in any way improper.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the revelations concerning the role played by Miss Carmel Carriere, who was once the executive assistant to the Minister of the Environment, in the extension of the Sky Shops lease, and her subsequent appointment to a $27,000 a year job with the Immigration Appeal Board on the recommendation of at least one minister, can the Prime Minister now inform the House on whose recommendation Miss Carriere was appointed and whether she will be reappointed to that position in view of the fact that her present term expires on May 10 of this year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without in any way admitting what was put as the preamble to the question, this position with the Immigration Appeal Board would have been on the recommendation, I imagine, of the then minister responsible for immigration, and it would have been authorized by order in council of the government.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not think it appropriate then to postpone such reappointment of Miss Carriere until her status has been fully clarified, so that the reappointment will be made only after there has been a full inquiry and that status has been clarified once again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the reappointment is concerned, I believe this particular one will be coming up in a month or two and I will bear in mind the representation of the hon. member.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister alluded to the fact that a senior official of the Quebec Department of Justice had indicated that the possibility of a pre-inquiry into the Sky Shops affair is probable-that was the official, not the Prime Minister. Has the minister had any discussions with his counterpart in Quebec about the merits of such an inquiry?
Oral Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, since it is my understanding that a pre-inquiry could in fact be held in camera with the results transmitted only to the department, will the minister undertake to discuss this method of proceeding with his counterpart in order that we can be sure the results of such an inquiry are public, because surely a private result would be unacceptable?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, whether there is a pre-inquiry or not is, as far as I am concerned, the suggestion in a newspaper report. That is the only information I have seen. However, I also think it would be improper for me to endeavour in some way to direct the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec on how to administer justice within that province and within its very clear jurisdiction.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since the minister last night confirmed his lack of curiosity when the RCMP asked for his files on the Sky Shops matter, I wonder whether he could explain why he made no attempt to get some clarification for this rather unusual request either from the RCMP, other ministers or someone on his staff, in particular his executive assistant?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, precisely for the reason that if I did make any attempt to do so hon. members opposite, at least some of them, would have accused me of trying to interfere with the process of investigation.


An hon. Member:: Oh, never.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. In view of the minister's admission last night on the adjournment debate, brought on by the hon. member for Central Nova, that there were many matters raised at that time which the hon. minister could not answer, and in view of his specific statement last night as recorded at page 12756 of Hansard that: "My only comment is that I hope the matter is cleared up as quickly as possible", will the minister agree that this should be the case? There were many things raised last night which are matters of public record, but which are unknown to the minister and about which he could not answer last night. In view of the obvious desire to clarify this matter as soon as possible, would he not agree that he should be one at least in the Cabinet who would be in favour of a public inquiry into this matter?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given the statement by the Prime Minister in answer to the first question that the RCMP, in discussions with him, indicated they would not want to lay any charges against any minister, it seems there is still a matter which is troubling me and many other people. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how a lease involving a duty-free shop at an airport could find its way into the office of the minister in charge of DREE, and on what basis, on what right and for what purpose was that? Was the purpose to allow the minister responsible for DREE to follow the normal practice which seems to have become apparent with these contracts regarding the province of Quebec; that is, to be vetted by the ministry of that particular man as the Quebec leader?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, could I remind the hon. member that he made an allegation yesterday concerning this matter that he has not yet withdrawn, and it is at page 12710 of Hansard. I would ask him whether-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I could raise the question of privilege now as a result of what the right hon. gentleman has said, or I could wait until three o'clock. In any event, Sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we might as well wait until three o'clock because the same question of privilege is going to be raised on either one side of the House or the other.


ROLE OF MR. LALONDE IN DEALING WITH QUEBEC CONTRACTS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not answered the question with regard to the input of what I have called the acknowledged leader at that time in terms of his party in Quebec. He has not answered that question. While he is thinking about the answer to that question would he think about this. If there is or was such input by that minister, I would ask the Prime Minister to inform the House whether the same input is now being made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare? If that is so, by what authority under the Financial Administration Act or any other federal statute is such input legalized?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to hear what the member will say at three o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MANPOWER
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration my question is directed to his parliamentary secretary. In view of Statistics Canada reports published today to the effect that youth unemployment remains above 13 per cent, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can inform this House what measures he intends to introduce aimed at reducing youth unemployment this coming summer?


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the hon. member's question, but I would remind him that he will have the opportunity to discuss this problem before the committee, since the department's estimates will be tabled very soon.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, recent reports have indicated that the government is about to place a $150 million order for new armoured cars for the Canadian forces. In view of the fact the Defence Department has recommended that the government purchase the Swiss Piranha model over the Brazilian Urutu, and in view of the fact that this Swiss model would be produced in London, Ontario by General Motors under licence, thus involving a considerable economic benefit to Canada, will the minister assure the House that the order will be placed with the Swiss company to ensure that Canada does indeed receive the economic benefits?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to announce the decision at the present time. It is true that we are negotiating the purchase of an armoured vehicle, and the recommendations at the present time are before Treasury Board.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE DEALING WITH PURCHASE OF BRAZILIAN ARMOURED CAR-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN WORKERS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of what appears to be pressure from the Latin American division of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to purchase the armoured cars from Brazil is the minister prepared to table all correspondence relating to this purchase in the committee dealing with the defence department's estimates.
April 13, 1976


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this problem is still before the Treasury Board. When the decision will be taken, we will see to that.


John R. Rodriguez: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary again is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that the interests of Canadian workers will be put first before the building up of a military economic complex in Brazil.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this proposal to buy equipment for the army is one which has long since been submitted to the House. We do have military obligations, and of course we have to keep them.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Senate report on the state of the textile industry in Canada states that the domestic industry's share of the Canadian market has been allowed to slip from 64 per cent ten years ago to less than 46 per cent now and that 25,000 textile workers were laid off in the past year and the unemployment rate among textile workers was 18 per cent in 1975 compared with the Canadian average of 7 per cent, does the government intend to follow the recommendation of the Senate that:
The minister should negotiate voluntary restraint agreements on more textile products and with more countries and these should be more closely policed than at present. In addition, the government should keep an up to date import control list so it knows what the situation is.
In other words, it should know what the score is and what is going on.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. While I will not say we will follow the Senate recommendations in their entirety, there are some logical recommendations there. I might tell the hon. member that, provided the necessary work can be completed today, I will be tabling three reports of the textile and clothing board tomorrow and as is the custom, immediately thereafter indication will be given of what action the government proposes to take in those three sectors.
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


SUGGESTION NEW POLICY BE DEVELOPED BEFORE ELIMINATION OF RAIL SUBSIDIES ON FLOUR AND GRAIN
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is one of a continuing series to the Minister of Transport as custodian of section 272 of the Railway Act. Because the dominion-provincial task force has been for a few days studying the feasibility of running unit grain trains from the prairies to Saint John or Halifax, would the minister not now agree with the wisdom of my much older proposal that a new policy be developed and not just studied before putting to the axe the old policy of rail subsidies on flour and grain.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is looking at the positive side and sees the great and good things that can happen when an expensive policy which creates anomalies is removed.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The same Senate report indicated that the government was not following out in the last year and one half its own announced textile policy. In view of the massive lay-offs in this country in the textile industry at the present time and the great difficulty the industry is facing, can the minister explain to the House why the government has not been carrying out its announced policy during the last few years?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I said there were parts of the report with which I agreed and others with which there was some disagreement. I do not think it is quite correct, indeed I do not agree with the sweeping generalization, that we have not been carrying out the policy. I should say, however, to the hon. member that I mentioned the fact that probably tomorrow or Thursday we will be indicating what we probably will be doing in three sectors. Shortly thereafter, I will indicate the terms of reference for a group requested by the textile industry which will have representation I hope from the interested provinces, and which will examine precisely the question the hon. member has raised concerning the implementation of the existing policy and how it can be improved. At the same time, I will look at some of the other proposals, a variety of them, which have come forward both through the committee report of the Senate and from other bodies.

April 13, 1976
Oral Questions FINANCE


ALLEGED FAILURE OF FAST WRITE-OFFS AND REDUCED TAX RATES FOR CORPORATIONS TO CREATE EMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. After reviewing the figures for employment in the manufacturing industries, I find that no more jobs existed in the first quarter of 1976 than on average in 1972 and in view of the fact that the corporate tax measures of fast write-offs and reduced tax rates introduced in the budget of May 1972 and subsequently confirmed in other budgets were designed to, "provide well paying new jobs for Canadians" in the manufacturing industry, is the minister prepared to concede that these measures have failed to provide the promised employment opportunity.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker.


EFFECT OF ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ON COMPETITIVE TRADING POSITION WITH UNITED STATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, considering that the rate of inflation in Canada exceeds that in the United States by nearly 3 per cent, and that the recent appreciation in the exchange rate with the United States dollar is making our exports even less competitive, is the minister in a position to report whether the antiinflation program of the present administration has had any success in halting the erosion of our competitive position with the United States.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have had occasion to observe the program has been effective in reducing the average rate of settlements in Canada in the last six months from somewhere close to 20 per cent down to at least 5 percentage points lower.


REQUEST FOR COMPARISON OF CANADIAN PRICE, WAGE AND UNIT COST TRENDS WITH UNITED STATES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, since the improvement of our competitive position is one of the anti-inflation program-and I suggest that bringing it down from 20 per cent to 15 per cent is a long way from the 8 per cent target-and since the resolve of Canadians to fight inflation will be heightened by a full appreciation of the seriousness of the current situation, will the minister include, in his budget presentation, a comparison of Canadian price, wage and unit cost trends with those of the United States, as was done by his predecessor in the June 23 budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider the suggestion. I point out that the comparison with 8 per cent, of course, the latter is the rate of average compensation as opposed to the rate of settlements which have occurred in specific contracts in the manufacturing sector.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Is the Minister of Justice prepared to tell the House what he intends to do regarding the denunciations of Andre Choquette, formerly with the United Aircraft Corporation, in terms of Judge Louis Paradis' comments, following acquittal by a jury, and in terms of what the judge said against the jury's decision? Can the Minister of Justice tell the House whether he intends to deal severely with a judge of the Superior Court who judges his own peers, who takes a decision concerning a union member who has in effect been acquitted by twelve people?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, speaking generally of course it is not unusual for judges to make some comments on jury verdicts, but speaking specifically on this case, the gentleman in question has written to me complaining about the judge's remarks and it is the appropriate type of case which falls within section 33 of the Judges Act, so I will make a reference of the letter to the Judicial Council of Canada.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Following the policy statement of the Department of the Secretary of State concerning the development of francophone minorities outside Quebec, does the Secretary of State intend to do something about some of the claims of the federation of Francophones outside Quebec, to wit, develop regional offices and create positions of coordinators of bilingualism at regional and local levels in order to be really in tune with the population concerned?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The federation of Francophones outside Quebec notices also that it is imperative that its allotted budget for the current year be re-evaluated. Does the Secretary of State intend to take the necessary means to ensure that this organization in full development will not be another victim of the government's budgetary cuts?


James Hugh Faulkner: That is a more difficult proposition.


AVAILABILITY OF SPECIAL GRANTS TO STUDY NATIVE LANGUAGES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State, and it refers to his recent statements about second language training across the country. Did those statements refer only to the two official languages, or will special grants be available from that grant structure for native communities studying native languages across this country?


James Hugh Faulkner: No,
Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, the program is a follow up to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and therefore deals only with the two official languages.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will he take a special position with his cabinet colleagues, because of the importance to native culture of the preservation of Indian languages, with reference to the brief submitted to him last week by the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians suggesting that some of the grant funds for second language education be channelled toward native language study where they do not at this time have a written language?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, we just recently extended our grants to cultural colleges for another year period. I think they amount to $5 million for the cultural colleges for the Indian people across the country, and languages are one of their major areas of study.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. It has to do with the dispute with the employees of the finance department of Air Canada. Following his meeting yesterday, I wonder if the minister might indicate to the House the results of that meeting and specifically whether he has assurances from Air Canada that there will be no lockouts, and second, that the farming out of jobs to CAE and others will cease.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did meet with the Air Canada people yesterday. They assured me that they were not attempting to break the union in any way as a result of the impasse in negotiations. They said that they had contracted out some work. They contended it was a minimum proportion of the work-
Oral Questions
load, and that this was to assist them in catching up with the backlog. They did not anticipate any escalation in the contracting out of further work, certainly for the immediate future. I might also say that they assured me that Air Canada has no intention of phasing out its operations, namely, its financial administration, out of the Winnipeg area.


An hon. Member:: We have heard that story before.


John Carr Munro: I know, but it was reiterated yesterday. I might also indicate that talks are resuming today, I believe, between the parties in the hope that this long standing dispute can be resolved.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Can the minister indicate to the House whether he received assurances that Air Canada will not lock out the employees of its finance department?


John Carr Munro: I did not get that in specific terms. I just indicated all the assurances I received. With contract talks resuming today, I do not believe it would be beneficial to the interests of either side for any further aggravation of that kind.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport, and it relates to the problems at the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg. The Minister of Labour just stated that Air Canada would not be phasing out the finance branch, but he said also that Air Canada is contracting work out because it is getting behind. I point out to the Minister of Transport that the staff there is sitting doing nothing. Will the minister get a firm assurance from Air Canada today that it will not phase out the finance branch in Winnipeg? This is the main root of the problem, and this is why there is unrest. There is a constant rumour that the finance branch will be moved.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there should not be any unrest about that because Air Canada has made this very clear to the finance branch in Manitoba. Air Canada has firmly indicated that to me, and I am happy to pass that on to the hon. member. Air Canada has no intention of phasing out the finance branch in Winnipeg.


APPEARANCE OF REYE'S SYNDROME IN NEWFOUNDLAND- REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION AND REPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There is evidence of two cases of Reye's syndrome in northern Newfoundland, which is a wonder because of the fact that there has been no spraying

April 13, 1976
Oral Questions
of the spruce budworm since 1968. I wonder if the minister would indicate if he has caused an investigation into this matter, and what were the results?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have not caused an investigation into this matter. However, we are funding research on this subject by Dr. Crocker at Dalhousie University in Halifax. We have to await the results of that study. As the hon. member said, the cases seem to have developed without relation to spraying, and a few cases have recently been reported in the eastern United States which also do not seem to be related to spraying, so we may be facing a difficult situation. The cause and effect relationship does not seem to have been well established yet with regard to this rare disease.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that spraying of the spruce budworm could seriously affect the economy of the Atlantic region vis-a-vis the pulp and paper industry, and that there would also be an effect on the timber resources of the province as a result of the spruce budworm and the hemlock looper, I wonder if the minister would indicate if he has had a discussion with the ministers responsible in the Atlantic region to ensure that the future of the pulp and paper industry in the Atlantic region will be solidified.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, my department and my officials are very conscious of the importance of forestry resources for the Maritime provinces, and any decision by both levels of government to protect and develop these resources is a matter of concern to us.
As for damages caused by the spruce budworm, our department recently agreed to participate in discussions with the government of New Brunswick in order to fight this plague at the beginning of the season. To my knowledge, however, we have not participated so far in any negotiations with other governments of the Maritime provinces. There may have been exchanges of information but I do not know of any negotiations or actual proposals concerning a program which could be implemented either by the government of Newfoundland or the government of New Brunswick to deal with this problem, if it is more acute there.
I note that newspapers report that Nova Scotia does not see fit, at this time, to participate in such a program.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs

and Northern Development, if I could have his attention. A report recently indicated that the minister was intending to make an announcement on April 22 with regard to drilling permits in the Beaufort Sea. In view of the delays already, would the minister advise why it is necessary that this announcement be made on April 22, at a time when this parliament will not be in session?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the source of the hon. member's information. It is our hope to make a decision this week.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the minister therefore confirm that that decision will be made while the House is in session? If he intends to make it this week, can we expect that announcement either today or tomorrow; otherwise will it be made after the break? Will the minister give an assurance that the announcement will be made in the House so that members of the opposition will have an opportunity to respond?


J. Judd Buchanan: The problem I have is that the matter is on the agenda for cabinet on Thursday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Judd Buchanan: Unless hon. members would like to sit on Thursday, I do not know how we can deal with it before the House adjourns.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General arising out of a form letter dated March 17 from his office and signed by him. The letter was sent to all Pitney Bowes customers and urges the recipients to buy Olympic meter dies for $150. The question I would like to ask is what portion of the $150 is to be retained by Pitney Bowes, and why is the taxpayer of Canada asked to pay for the minister's solicitations on behalf of this business?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, Pitney Bowes has a vested interest in selling meter dies, which is their business. We have a vested interest in ensuring that meter dies contain the Olympic symbol in order that people who use meter dies rather than stamps will avail themselves of the opportunity of offering financial assistance to the Olympics. Of course, this is a co-operative venture of the Post Office, Pitney Bowes and the Olympics in general.
April 13, 1976



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have never abused this procedure. I have been sitting here for ten years and I never used it before as far as I can remember. I simply refer to what the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) said yesterday. I did not do this earlier because there was some confusion yesterday on the import of his words; then I read Hansard, and here is what the hon. member said. I shall say it in English because he spoke in English so that his words are not misinterpreted. The hon. member said the following, and I quote;

Again, a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the now public admission in the matter of the extension of the Sky Shops lease that the then minister of DREE was allowed input into the question as Quebec leader, although this lease-

Mr. Speaker, this is the point I want to raise this afternoon. I do not know where there was public admission that I played a role in the extension of the Sky Shops contract. I even stated the contrary; nobody ever dared state that I had something to do directly or indirectly with the Sky Shops affair. I hope that the hon. member did not think what he said and that he will simply say what he meant, and the matter will be settled. If he maintains that he did say this, Mr. Speaker, I will ask you to have him withdraw his words if he does not want the normal procedure in such a case to be followed. I do not want-and I have no intention of playing the offended virgin-reputations to be destroyed through insinuations; I think that we should not accept this in the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: -I am glad the minister raised the matter today as a question of privilege. He asked me specifically to withdraw an allegation with respect to his involvement, direct or indirect. He also asked me whether there had been any reference with respect to his involvement in this particular matter. I accepted unequivocally, in the preface to my question to the Prime Minister today, the statement made by the Prime Minister on the reports made to him by commissioner Nadon which stated-these are his words, I think; I took them down- that he does not recommend that charges be laid against members of the government. I have never accepted anything else with respect to this minister.
With respect to the public statement as to his involvement, it was made on April 8, 1976, by his brother minister who is now Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, when in answer to a question by the hon. member for Central Nova with respect to this matter he said the following, in part:
Privilege-Hon. J. Marchand
I have, however, been informed informally that there was an exchange of correspondence between the executive assistant of the Minister of the Environment and my executive assistant.
That was in his then capacity as minister of transport. The question that I have, and the question that many Canadians and many members of the House have on their minds, is not with respect to any criminal involvement of the minister, because that has been laid to rest by the leader of the government, but with respect to his responsibility for the operation of his office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think the minister, now that he has raised the matter as a question of privilege, owes the House an explanation as to how, on God's green earth-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -a matter involving Sky Shops leases at airports could find its way into the office of the minister in charge of DREE.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I repeat, sir, that I have accepted without question, as I must, as I am bound to and as I do-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You're slipping.


Walter David Baker: -the statement of the Prime Minister with respect to the criminal involvement. But I do not accept, as a member of the House of Commons, the words of the Prime Minister yesterday that I must substantiate everything, as if I were in a court of law. I am an elected representative here and I am entitled to certain answers, and so are the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, in the course of making a contribution to a question of privilege raised by the Minister of the Environment, pursued a point which is of great value. But the narrow confines of the question of privilege relate only to whether or not yesterday, in the words of the Minister of the Environment today, an allegation was in fact made that the minister had input into a certain decision. That was the language that was used. I will have to ask the hon. member to confine himself to that point.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have almost completed what I have to say with respect to the matter. As to the last point made by the Prime Minister yesterday-I think this is a question of privilege which affects the privileges of this House-the question is, what is the position of a member when he asks a question? If the Prime Minister is allowed, day after day, to set up a straw man regarding the laying of a charge or the making of an allegation when a member asks a question, then I do not think this should be allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 13, 1976
Privilege-Hon. J. Marchand


Walter David Baker: In closing, I want to draw to the attention of the House and to you, sir, your own words with respect to the incident that occurred involving the hon. member for York-Simcoe. At that stage there was an attempt to ask a member to substantiate, to withdraw his statement or to lay a charge, and all of this silly, specious parliamentary nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: He said:
And the third rather vague practice relating to charges made if they are specific, withdrawn or in some way connected with an offer to put a member's seat at risk. That practice is very vague.
It is even worse than that, sir. You are most charitable. That practice does not exist in our parliamentary democracy or in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I say to the minister, on his very narrow question of privilege, that such is the public record. Sir, the question still remains of the minister's political responsibility for the actions of those who are involved in his office.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be useful to put in its proper context the complaint of the Minister of the Environment. He complains of a statement made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton as reported on page 12710 of Hansard. The statement must be read in its entirety. With great respect, I think that a moment or two ago the Chair missed a word. I think Your Honour referred to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton as referring to an input into a decision. With great respect, that was not the phrase used. Allow me to read the question as reported on page 12710 of Hansard. This is what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton is reported to have said:
Again, a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the now public admission in the matter of the extension of the Sky Shops lease that the then minister of DREE was allowed input into the question as Quebec leader, although this lease was not within his departmental jurisdiction, could the Prime Minister now tell the House whether the policy and practice of the government is that all contracts for the province of Quebec, whatever their departmental origin, are currently vetted through the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as head of the Quebec troika?
The Prime Minister replied, and what he said is pertinent to the question of privilege the minister has raised. He said, first:
I am not sure what the hon. member is implying-
He was not implying anything; I put that in my own parentheses. I continue quoting:
-when he says there was input by the minister responsible for DREE. I think it has been quite clear from the minister that he was not involved in any way with the Sky Shops matter and therefore I think the hon. member, if he made that allegation, should be prepared to withdraw it or substantiate it.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton then said:
I made no allegation with respect to the involvement of the minister.
I submit that if the matter the minister has raised is to amount to a breach of the minister's privileges, the state-

ment alluded to must amount either to a slander of his person as minister, libel, or a statement in the nature of a charge directed at the minister and implying corruption. I think the precedents are clear and I need not cite the authorities at length. I refer the Chair to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, page 96, citation 105(3). I refer to the third paragraph of that citation. I submit that the minister's complaint does not amount to the type of privilege contemplated by that citation.
I also cite May's Parliamentary Practice, eighteenth edition, page 148. In that part, headed "Reflections upon members", there are examples of speeches and writings which have been held to be contemptuous and breaching the privileges of a member. Not one of the examples given in that citation is similar to the matter described and put forward by the minister and complained of. The only example which is in the least similar to the matter complained of comes under the heading on page 149, "Imputations against members of corruption in the execution of their duties."
I submit that the statement of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, that the then minister of DREE was allowed input into the question of the lease, falls far short of an allegation of corruption. Indeed, it is questionable if it falls within the definition of improper conduct. It may well be that there was a vetting of the leases on behalf of the minister of DREE who now says he had nothing to do with it. It appears that there was an exchange of correspondence between his executive assistant, when he was minister of DREE, and the executive assistant of the then minister of transport. I say all this on the assumption, expounded and confirmed by the Prime Minister yesterday, that ministers are responsible for their personal staffs and that their staffs must adhere to a certain code of conduct. We must, therefore, assume that there was ministerial responsibility for that exchange of correspondence.
The then minister of transport acknowledged that he subsequently knew of the exchange of correspondence, although he had not seen it. That, sir, may be proper conduct. I do not think the Prime Minister, responding yesterday to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, should have said, "make a charge." That, I submit, was not the course to be followed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the purpose of this discussion is not to talk about the conduct of the Prime Minister yesterday. We are considering a question of privilege relating to affairs concerning the Minister of the Environment only, and we ought to confine ourselves to that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, indeed we are concerned about yesterday's proceedings since the question of privilege arises from the exchange between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I simply submit to the Chair that yesterday the Prime Minister's proper course was to answer the question. If there was no impropriety, he could simply have said so and that would have ended the matter for the day. I submit as strongly as I can that although the minister's feathers may be ruffled, the point does not constitute a breach of his parliamentary privileges nor a breach of the privileges of this House.
April 13, 1976

I submit that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton used mild language yesterday, in view of the evidence. It is on the record: it was put there by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and by other questioners involved in the subject matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I make my own role clear in this matter? My purpose in challenging the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton-


Walter David Baker: The Prime Minister should be more worried about the next member for Ottawa-Carleton.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -was to make sure that the facts were known to this House. I am not raising a question of privilege, although the minister may. My role was to make sure that this House understood the allegation smuggled into the question by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: Smile, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The allegation smuggled into the preamble of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the allegation, the hon. member suggested that there is a public admission that the then minister was allowed input. Mr. Speaker, the minister denied this input. The hon. member made some smokescreen to talk about other things. The essence of the question before the House is that this fact alleged by the hon. member is false. Whether the matter raised amounts to a question of privilege, calls for withdrawal, or anything else, is a matter for the Chair to decide. I want to establish clearly that the allegation was false, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: You don't read
Hansard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was a false statement of fact, such as the opposition very frequently makes in the preamble to a question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I will call on the hon. member for Annapolis Valley in a moment, but I want to indicate my assessment of the situation. The Chair has been asked to decide two questions: first, whether an allegation was made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton; second, whether a question of privilege exists with respect to the privileges of the Minister of the Environment or all members of the House. I do not think either question is terribly difficult to decide. Both are significant, but I do not think either gives the Chair difficulty. First, it is obvious that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton made an allegation. I cannot think of any other interpretation of language which reads:
Again, a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the now public admission in the matter of the extension of the Sky Shops lease that the then minister of DREE was allowed input into the question as Quebec leader-
Business of the House
That is an allegation. It could not be interpreted in any other way. I find that it is an allegation. The question I now have to decide is whether it constitutes a question of privilege. I find it does not constitute a question of privilege. It is an allegation which is denied; it is an allegation which has been called false, but it is not an allegation of improper conduct. It is not unparliamentary language, and it is not in any of the confines of the definition of questions of privilege that have been accepted in the past. It is an accusation or allegation made by one member in respect of the conduct of another. It concerns an allegation of fact which is disputed. That is something that occurs rather frequently in the House.
It may constitute a matter of great irritation or debate both inside and outside the House and a matter of considerable significance vis-a-vis the reputation of members on either side of the House, but within the confines of the definition as I understand it, it does not constitute a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the length of the present session of parliament. I realize that there is nothing in the rule books that requires the government to prorogue a session of parliament within any given period of time. However, in view of the fact that traditions are being shattered by the length of this present session, which is approaching two years, it seems that parliament ought at some point to be advised whether this session is going to go on and on, or whether the government plans for it to be prorogued within a reasonable time.
I recognize that today is Tuesday, not Thursday. However, since we will not be here on Thursday it is a matter of order that the House be told of the government's plans, not just for the next few days but for the balance of this session. Does it intend to bring the session to an end in 1976? If so, when? What does it expect the House to do between now and whatever date it plans for the session to be ended? There are two questions here: When will the session be prorogued, and when will the summer recess commence? At some point before we rise for the Easter recess the House has the right to have this information communicated to it. I realize that this could perhaps be done tomorrow on the motion regarding the Easter adjournment, but it strikes me it would be useful for us to have his information in advance of that debate. That is why I raise it as a point of order today.


Mr. Speaker:: I could not, in fairness, in any of the precedents find that the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre constitutes a valid point of order in respect of today's proceedings. Although it is a question of great interest to hon. members, it certainly does not constitute a point of order with respect of today's proceedings. However, it may be a question of sufficient general interest that the House will want to give

April 13, 1976
Business of the House
its consent to allow the President of the Privy Council to comment on it. Does the House give consent to such a comment being made by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who indicated to me his intention to ask the question today. Under ordinary circumstances I would have made such a statement either on Thursday, if we were sitting, or tomorrow at the time of adjournment. However, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is right and that it will help in the adjournment debate if the House has some indication of the government's plans for the remainder of this session. I might as well give a complete statement of business for today, tomorrow and for the period until we hope to adjourn or prorogue.
Today we will begin with Bill S-31, the Quarantine Act, which I am hopeful will not take very long. When that is concluded we will take the report stage of Bill C-20, the amendments to the Citizenship Act. Hon. members will also recall that there will be a vote on second reading of Bill C-83 at 4.30 p.m. today. Tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-20 and the adjournment motion.
It is the government's purpose to conclude this session to all intents and purposes by June 30 and to begin a new session in the fall. I understand from the attitude of the parties opposite that they share these objectives. I am sure they do not want to sit in July. Indeed, so much is the prospect disliked by some members that I hear rumours about a platoon system on the part of the official opposition so that those who do not want to stay can go home, while the rest bask in the warmth of the July days in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Make a charge, or withdraw.


Mitchell William Sharp: I withdraw. I know that the opposition would like to bring this session to an end and to have a Speech from the Throne as soon as possible. There are certain bills on the order paper which have high priority, including some in which a great deal of House time has been invested. The government wishes to see these dealt with before the summer adjournment which I repeat, will be, in effect, the end of the new session even if we continue for a very brief period just before the opening of the new session in the fall.
One Bill, C-61, is at third reading. Three Commons bills are at the report stage, namely, C-20, C-68 and C-89, and one bill from the Senate, S-8. Next in order of the investment of House time is Bill C-83, second reading debate on which was concluded yesterday and which now goes to committee. Then we come to four bills which are on the order paper, which have not yet been called for debate but which the government wishes to have disposed of before the summer adjournment, namely, C-81, C-84, C-87 and C-88.
The government has no other major items that it intends to proceed with during the present session, except a budget. It may be necessary, however, to seek approval for

two bills, one relating to airport security and one to extend the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act, which should not be controversial. I must add that there may be government decisions in the next couple of months that will require House action, of which I am not now aware.
From now to the end of June there are 13 allotted days. It is my intention to distribute these throughout the weeks that remain, beginning with May 4 and May 7 which I now designate as allotted days. The last allotted day will be June 22. I hope to discuss with the House leaders a full program of allotted days, in the intervening period, for the other ten days. With co-operation from all sides, I am confident that we can achieve our purpose and be able to adjourn and terminate this session to all intents and purposes before the July 1 holiday.
I have omitted from this list Bill C-82 relating to the Thousand Islands bridge because of the illness and absence from the House of the hon. member for Leeds who has a special interest in it. If he returns before June 30, and proceeding with that bill will not interfere with other business, it will be included. Finally, I should perhaps indicate the order of bills when we return after the Easter break. The first order of business will be three bills related to the anti-inflation and restraint program, namely, C-89, C-81 and C-68. It is the government's wish to begin second reading debate on Bill C-84, the bill relating to capital punishment, during the second week of our return, and except for interruptions for allotted days and for the budget, if that should intervene, to continue that second reading debate until it is concluded.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is one vital omission in the government's program which will eat up six days of about 30 government days remaining between now and September. That is, the budget. Did the minister mention the budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes.


Walter David Baker: I apologize. On behalf of the hon. member for Leeds, I want to thank the government House leader for his consideration with regard to the bill dealing with the Thousand Islands bridge. Finally, has he consulted his seatmate with regard to the by-election in Ottawa-Carleton?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister one question with respect to the information he has given us. With regard to the plan for concluding by June 30, that will obviously call for a good deal of co-operation. But is the government now making a firm commitment that the first session of the thirtieth parliament will end in mid-1976 and that a new session will start this fall?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, unless something very untoward occurs, it is our hope to end the session on June 30. Certainly we will not extend it beyond the summer break. I should add, Mr. Speaker, that we may return for a day or so before beginning the new session.
April 13, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) on the same point of order.


Léonel Beaudoin: No, Mr. Speaker, it is on the same question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Since the minister has indicated that this session would be adjourned and that there would be a few days left to discuss the bills he just mentioned, before starting the other session, would the minister say whether it is final one way or another that the summer recess will begin on June 30?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is our purpose and our plan. I hope we will receive the utmost co-operation. I am quite sure there can be adequate debate on the remaining items to the satisfaction of the public and of this House if we can program our bills in an orderly way. I hope for the co-operation not only of the House leaders but of all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) on the same point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, once again, I should like to respectfully draw your attention to the fact that on motions today, I moved a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, and when you asked for the unanimous consent of the House to allow me to put this motion, I heard objections being voiced from the Gallery across the floor. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would beg you to kindly put in practice Standing Order 28, which states that a member, when he wants to intervene, must rise in his seat to be identified, because today we have not been able to identify the member who put in an objection to the motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 43. Mr. Speaker, we have realized for some time now that this practice of opposing any motion moved pursuant to Standing Order 43 comes perhaps from the House, but today I have seen people in the gallery who objected to this motion. I cannot understand that we take for granted an objection to any motion being put by someone who must not take part in the House debates because he is not a member.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to try to settle this question once and for all by applying Standing Order 28.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The last time the hon. member raised this question on the same point of order, I tried to explain the situation in French. It might not have been clear. So, I must explain it once more but this time perhaps I should do so in English.

Standing Order 43 does not envisage speeches on a motion which are described in Standing Order 28. The question to which the House is asked to address itself, pursuant to Standing Order 43, is whether or not it wishes to give its unanimous consent to setting aside whatever business is scheduled for the day in order to debate something else.
Dairy Policy
A withholding of consent might constitute simply an expression of refusal to stop the debate of the day, refusal to stop the question period, or refusal to stop routine proceedings, and have nothing to do with the merits of the question. It is not a speech on the motion, and it is not an expression either of support or rejection of the motion itself. It is simply a question whether or not the consent of the House is given to stopping business at that point and addressing itself to some other matter.
Standing Order 28, which has to do with speeches, is not applicable to Standing Order 43, where the question is whether the business of the day can be set aside in order that the House might proceed to consider something else. That can only be done by unanimous consent, and if there is a single contrary voice, regardless of the side of the House from which it comes, and regardless whether the hon. member wishes to identify himself, a motion under Standing Order 43 cannot be pursued.


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cafik.

Stanley Ronald Basford: Pursuant to Standing Order 41(1), I should like to table, in both official languages, a report of the Canadian Law Reform Commission entitled "Mental Disorder in the Criminal Process."


TRANSPORT
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, a summary report on the investigation into the swamping of the vessel San Juan off the east coast.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty at this time to announce the dairy program for the 1976-77 dairy year. Effective today, the target returns level for industrial milk has been increased to $11.45 per hundredweight. This is an increase of 43 cents per hundredweight, or 3.9 per cent, and is in line with increased cost of production. The new target returns level is determined in accordance with the long-term dairy

April 13, 1976
Dairy Policy
policy which I announced last year and which provides for adjustments equal to increased production costs.
The rate of federal subsidy for this year will remain unchanged from that of last year, at $2.66 per hundredweight. This is in keeping with the government's wish to moderate as much as possible the increase in dairy products prices in the interests of both the producer and the consumer.
In order that the target return of $11.45 per hundredweight be attained, the Canadian Dairy Commission, on behalf of the producers of industrial milk, will offer to purchase butter and skim milk powder from processors at higher prices. The support price for butter will increase 5 cents, to $1.08 per pound. The support price for skim milk powder will increase 4 cents, to 68 cents per pound.
Part of the reason for overproduction of industrial milk during the past year was insufficient control through the use of quota. The industry has no choice but to tighten its controls this year to bring industrial mild production down from its current high levels. The provinces and producer organizations, whose co-operation is essential, have recognized and agreed to this.
Taking into consideration the amount of stocks and projected demand for dairy products, the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee, which is made up of representatives of producers and provincial governments and is chaired by the Canadian Dairy Commission, has estimated that domestic requirements are 95 million hundredweight of industrial milk for 1976-77. This will be the maximum volume eligible for the direct subsidy of $2.66 per hundredweight.
In keeping with the fact that actual shipments of industrial milk are usually somewhat less than total market share quota, and that production of industrial milk must be curtailed, the total amount of market share quota to be allocated to provincial milk marketing agencies will be 100.5 million hundredweight. Should producers ship more than 94.5 per cent of their individual quota, a levy of $8.60 per hundredweight will be charged on all shipments exceeding 94.5 per cent of quota. A year-end adjustment will be made to assure that the $8.60 levy will apply only to shipments in excess of 95 million hundredweight.
Any milk shipped in excess of individual quota holdings will have the penalty of $8.60 per hundredweight applied, and there will be no chance for refund on any deliveries in excess of quota. The levy on all in-quota deliveries has been increased to $1.35 per hundredweight in accordance with our policy.
I realize that bringing milk production in line with demand will be a difficult adjustment for dairy farmers. But to operate an effective supply-management system, producers should not exceed domestic market demands. After all, this is what supply management means.
I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that dairy farmers must reduce their shipments of industrial milk now, and not starting next fall or winter near the close of the dairy year. I do not want farmers continuing along at present high levels of production and adding to our surplus only quickly to deplete their herds at the end of the dairy year

in order to avoid shipping more milk than their annual quota allows. That sort of irresponsible action would result in too few cows remaining to start off the subsequent dairy year, and possibly in a shortage of milk or milk products a few years from now.
To accomplish an early cutback in production, and yet not to overreact to the situation, I am asking the provincial milk marketing agencies to implement a monthly allocation of market share quotas to each individual producer. If a province does not establish a satisfactory system of controls, I have instructed the Canadian Dairy Commission to take whatever action it thinks is appropriate to achieve the desired goals.
One of the major areas of concern to me is the separation of the fluid and industrial milk markets. It is apparent that milk producers would benefit from a complete integration of both industrial and fluid milk markets. I believe that producers should receive equal returns for milk of equal quality, whether the milk is intended for manufacturing or fluid sales. I am asking the Canadian Dairy Commission to consult with the provincial milk marketing boards during the year to work out a program for complete integration of their fluid and industrial milk markets. This basis could provide a system for future federal subsidy programs. I am also asking the commission to review, within the framework of approved policy, other aspects of the program in their entirety.
While the year ahead will be a difficult one for the dairy producer, I want to reiterate that the government remains deeply committed to the dairy industry. The government will be paying subsidies of $253 million directly to producers and $24 million for marketing costs. In addition, product prices will be supported at $1.08 per pound of butter and 68 cents per pound of skim milk powder. To provide the necessary support, the government is increasing its loan limit to the Canadian Dairy Commission from $300 million to $334 million to finance the purchase of these products. It is also limiting cheese imports to 50 million pounds.
The Canadian International Development Agency has also been instructed to investigate thoroughly the possibility of increasing the skim milk powder component of its food aid program either through a bilateral arrangement or through the world food program in countries or on projects where it can be beneficially used. I was told just before entering the House, Mr. Speaker, that CIDA had decided to buy $20 million worth of skim milk powder, which will eliminate some of the dairy farmers' costs, etc. At world prices, this amounts to approximately 75 million to 80 million pounds of skim milk powder that the dairy farmers will not have to finance.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize that good supply management is the key to the continued prosperity of the Canadian dairy industry. It remains the policy of the governement to ensure that efficient producers of milk and cream are given the opportunity to earn reasonable returns. The policy which this government has adopted for the current dairy year will ensure that these aims are met.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, upon review of this statement and upon pondering its effects for the future,
April 13, 1976

one is encouraged to strengthen one's suspicions and doubts about this government's real intention to support a domestic dairy industry with any real, continuing stability. Agricultural subsidies, and particularly dairy subsidies, benefit producers and consumers alike. This announcement once again underlines the fact that it is this government's intention to shrink, and shrink substantially, Canada's dairy industry and to continue its policy of forcing producers to get every cent of their income in the future from the market place.
This is disturbing news to producers, but it carries with it equally severe and serious implications for the consuming public. Actual returns to producers could in the future be reduced, and market prices for dairy products likely will increase and consumption could well decline. Support appears to be reduced by some $22 million-$275 million as compared to $253 million-and it is estimated that an additional $40 million will be required from the total to cover some of the administration costs, some interest costs and storage fees, of which only $24 million will be paid either by the federal government or the Canadian Dairy Commission. Thus, a considerable portion will again fail to end up at the producer level.
It should be pointed out that when the program was announced last year with its target price of $11.02-a figure, by the way, that producers did not actually receive-the cost of production was not met then. Taking into account reductions in subsidy payments, haulage, export levies, licence fees and advertising, the amount received by producers was approximately $8.76 a hundredweight, or some $2.27 per hundredweight less than the target price.
It is widely recognized that the cost of producing one hundred pounds of milk varies. However, many well-documented cost studies indicate a figure in the neighbourhood of $14. With this figure in mind, and given the support price of $2.66 a hundredweight, producers are in fact actually subsidizing dairy products to the tune of $3 a hundredweight from their own operations. Some people may ask: How can such a statement be true; how can it be possible? Let me answer them, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is true and it is also commonplace. It is possible because the milk cheque income must be supplemented by sales of breeding stock, by sales of cash crops, and in many cases must be supplemented by off-the-farm income.
I am not quarrelling with the minister with respect to
world stocks of skim milk powder. However, the government's record in regard to skim milk powder for export sales and world food aid must be regarded as nothing less than a complete failure. Particularly at a time of surplus product, Canada's commitment remains at a shamefully low level. At a time when our domestic stocks are in a surplus position, it is unacceptable to learn that our commitment has been reduced. I am certain that most Canadians would agree that the need for world food aid has drastically increased over the past ten years. Canada's current commitment through CIDA of skim milk powder for aid is 1I * 3A million pounds less than our last ten-year average. I trust that the minister's instruction to CIDA will be more successful in the future than the past record indicates.
Dairy Policy
The minister's statement also made reference to quotas on cheese imports. Another unfortunate aspect of this government's inaction relates to the refusal to reduce cheese import quotas. Importation of cheese has risen drastically, from 31 million pounds in 1970 to 50 million pounds in 1975. This government has ignored the traditional method of calculation that is based on a five-year average. Calculated in this manner, we would have a quota of 38 million pounds, a limit much more in tune with the needs of Canadian producers and the industry. It has been indicated by a leading industry spokesman that every million pounds of chese imports results in a loss to Canadian producers of approximately $360,000. Thus, a reduction of 10 million pounds would result in savings to the industry of some $3.6 million.
I am not quarrelling with the minister about our present domestic surplus position. There are reasons for this that should be recognized, taken seriously and given full consideration. Most of the causes are not of the producers' own making. For example, we have had some excellent weather conditions during the past season. We have experienced declines in the number of exports of dary heifers, and we have had larger than normal numbers of older dairy cows still being held because of low beef prices. There are factors largely, if not totally, beyond the producers' control.
Canadian producers welcome the opportunity to compete in a fair marketplace but they cannot, and should not, be expected to compete in a marketplace filled with heavily subsidized products from foreign competitors. In addition, they should not have to stand alone against the treasuries of the European Economic Community in the world market, which is the case at the present time. The industry has requested that some special assistance be given to producers to overcome their world market disadvantage.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am certain that many of my colleagues on this side of the House will have questions. I would respectfully repeat the three suggestions or recommendations I made previously to the minister and his officials. First, the minister should continue actively to pursue the possibility of an effective supply management program at the national level as it relates to fluid milk production. Second, policy changes should create an incentive to even out year-round production. These two factors would match more closely supply with demand; thus, a reduction in surplus stocks would obviously result. Third, the government should transfer the control of import permits from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the Canadian Dairy Commission.
The content of the minister's statement recognizes some of the difficulties in the industry. However, its success relies heavily upon the producers' ability to match supply to demand. I am confident that the producers will fulfil their obligations, but I doubt that this government will be equally successful in meeting its obligations.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in considering the statement the minister has just made, the only thing I can say is that it is not worse than we anticipated, but obviously it does not make the situation much better. If the farmers of Canada supplying the dairy manufactur-
12776

April 13, 1976
Dairy Policy
ing industry were to receive $11.45 on 100 per cent of supply management quotas, those farmers would be very happy. The farmers do not receive that kind of money. While it is true that as a result of the government's policies we have been able to raise the price of industrial milk by 43 cents a hundred, we have at the same time reduced the anticipated size of global consumption as a result of increasing the price of butter by five cents and the price of skim milk powder by four cents. One of the problems results from the fact that the federal dairy policy does not, through market sharing quota arrangements, allow for a longer period of time, which is absolutely necessary in designing a program to meet the needs of dairy farmers.
The minister says we can increase production per cow. A dairy farmer operates on the basis of a herd and he has to make plans before deciding how much production he should have. If this is to be changed every three months, as has been the case in the past year, there is no way the dairy farmer can remain in a healthy state. For those farmers who are producing over 94.5 per cent of their quotas there will be a reduction, bringing the return below the farm cost of production. It would be much more honest on the part of the minister if rather than saying that the federal subsidy rate will be $2.66 per hundred, he had said the subsidy would be $1.31 on quota milk. Right now there is a deduction from all in-quota milk of $1.35, which leaves the federal subsidy at $1.31, not $2.66.
If we reduced the over-quota milk and the in-quota milk, the farmer would be left with something like 20 cents a hundred for producing milk. We should be very interested in this aspect of the matter because of its great implications not only for the dairy industry but in respect of the production of beef, pork and probably poultry as well.
If the farmer is to receive something in the neighbourhood of 20 cents a hundred for the milk he ships over quota, has $8.60 plus $1.31 deducted, and has to pay a transportation cost, he will find that shipping the milk to market will cost him money. The farmer is smart enough to know that he should buy a couple of pig's or start raising some veal. In this way the farmer will have to operate the dairy production safety valve on his own.
One of our major tasks in this country is to create a dairy industry that is able to meet Canadian requirements as well as producing for the export market. If a farmer has to decide, on a daily basis, how much milk he puts into the bulk tank, and knows if he puts too much in and only receives 20 cents per hundred it will cost him money, he will then open the safety valve and move into other production. This is particularly true if the farmer has to pay a transportation charge of, say, 75 cents. He will then end up with a net loss of considerably more than 50 cents. This will result in an increased production of beef, pork and poultry products.
As the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) said earlier, dairy farmers are concerned about the deal the minister made last November in relation to the export market. I gather from the November statement that we agreed to relate 10 per cent of our total manufactured dairy production to our imports of dairy products. The $50 million we have agreed to import in cheese production represents about 5 per cent of our manufactured production. It is not difficult to envisage that we will be importing other com-

modities, bringing us to that 10 per cent range without any exports at all.
Like the egg business, we have more exports than imports. We import eggs at the full table price but we export them at the breaker trade price. We export more eggs. But this is much like the skim milk powder business; we export a considerable amount of powder, but we do so at a loss. Who accepts that loss? I suggest it is not the government, but the loss is being absorbed by the farmers themselves.
I think it behooves every member of this House, whether interested in consumers or producers, to demand of the government that we develop a much more far-seeing dairy program than this, get away from the yearly quota and make a decision concerning what we anticipate to be the needs of the Canadian public. We should meet those needs and get whatever export sales we can. This should be done in conjunction with the provinces. The province of Ontario recently signed an agreement with the minister and that province is very unhappy with the agreement: it has written a long letter to the minister outlining ten or 12 reasons why it is dissatisfied. The province of Quebec has given the year's notice that will allow it to get out of the national share quota arrangement.


An hon. Member:: Why?


William Arnold Peters: Because there is not enough money. It is not satisfactory to the province of Quebec. The dairy farmers there are not satisfied. They are getting out for that reason. I am sorry the minister did not indicate that the dairy industry, through government assistance, would be able to go into the international markets through CIDA. We are quite pleased with the amount of $20 million he announced for the skim milk proposals in respect of CIDA. However, I think we have an opportunity to get into some of the other markets again. This may have to be subsidized, but it would not have to be subsidized to the amount the farmer now has to pay if he pays the two levies for in-quota and above-quota milk.
I think the farmer would be willing to make a contribution to an export levy more in keeping with the total requirements of the Canadian dairy industry. No farmer will be particularly pleased with the announcement made by the minister today. In the long run, I think we will see again, as we did last year, that when the consumer has to pay more, there is a reduction in the amount he will consume. This will be true in respect of butter, cheese and fluid milk.
I think it behooves the minister to really give some leadership in the development of a school milk program. I think it is interesting to note that a sister commonwealth provides free milk in all hotels. There is a milk bar in all the lobbies, and they provide milk in all the hotel rooms. They also provide milk in the schools. I do not think we want to interfere with the brewery industry, but surely we could get rid of the pop drink machines in the schools and put in milk. The minister is interested in this, but I suggest he has not done a very good job in selling this program to his colleagues. He should get some help from the backbenchers who represent consumers, if not the agricultural
April 13, 1976

industry. The establishment of a program which on a long-term basis will keep the Canadian dairy industry healthy is absolutely necessary for all segments of the Canadian population.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, industrial milk producers had been waiting the minister's statement since March 29. It should be particularly recalled that on March 29, during the producers' demonstration on Parliament Hill, the minister said he would make a statement on the dairy policy for 1976-77 before April 1. However, he made this statement only today, April 13. I had an inkling that the delay would spell bad news for the producers.
For several months, industrial milk producers have seen their income shrink considerably and they fear the worst for the year 1976. The producers organized meetings with their hon. members to make governments aware of their problems and during these meetings, there was a clear indication that it was at that time, and that it is still today, a political problem and that in order to maintain the producers' incomes at the 1975 level, the federal government must inject a supplement of $40 million in the economic sector. By the way, I should like to say that any government investing in agriculture makes an excellent investment because this is the basic industry of a country. As the government party claims to be on the side of power, he had to decide whether the producers would see their income reduced in the year 1976.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of power, we must be clear on this. Does government majority represent the real power or, on the contrary, is real power represented by high finance which commands the majority government to the extent that they are restricted in their financial means, which prevents them from acceding to the fair demands of industrial milk producers? People can think anything they want but it remains that the dairy industry is very important since it provides more than 300,000 jobs throughout Canada, including the producers themselves. It gives work to many truck drivers, it creates many jobs in manufacturing, packing, transportation industries and so on. It means that this industry helps the other sectors of activity of our economy.
When we talk about subsidies to support the dairy industry some people think it is the only industry that is subsidized in Canada. We often forget to evaluate how many millions of dollars in subsidies of all kinds are given to national and multinational corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to underline the following point: milk subsidies are some kind of additional revenue which is beneficial to consumers. If some day the consumer is asked to pay from his own revenue the real value of such or such dairy product he will realize that it will be even harder on his budget and that he will have to spend a major part of his revenue for food.
On the producers' side if a part of the products is paid directly by the consumers and the other part by the government it does not really change the situation, provided the producer can, when selling his product, recover his production costs plus a reasonable profit margin to earn a living at least equal to that of those working in other sectors of the economic activity.
Dairy Policy
In some countries, Mr. Speaker, the government subsidize up to 75 per cent of dairy products value. It is from those countries that we import some products and indirectly the problems we now experience are caused in part by those overly massive imports.
The minister tells us that we must reduce our dairy production to get better prices. The minister should know that it cannot be controlled like a water pipe can be controlled with a tap.
Two years ago producers were asked to increase their production. They responded. Nature helping, production was excellent in 1975. Another factor that prompted producers to improve production was the drop in beef prices. More cows were kept in the herd while farmers waited for better prices to take them to the slaughterhouse.
In any event, the president of the APU and the president of the Federated Cooperative sent a letter to the Prime Minister to bring to his attention the very nature of the problem and suggest possible solutions. First, they asked for a basic price of $11.42; second, that the subsidy of $2.66 be maintained; third, that cheese imports be reduced to 39 million; fourth, that the support price be raised by $30 million and an additional budget of $19 million approved to compensate the producer who must cut down on his production.
Well, the minister's reply today is that he will boost the price of milk by 43 cents a hundredweight to offset higher production costs. On the other hand, in another part of his statement, he informs producers that the export levy will be $1.35, 70 cents more than in the fall of 1975.
In brief, the situation will be worse than in 1975-76. In 1975-76, the government spent $270 million to support producers' prices, a subsidy of $2.66 a hundredweight, and at the same time last year the levy was 45 cents a hundredweight and the basic price $11.02. In 1976-77, the government anticipates $253 million will be paid directly to producers, the subsidy will remain at $2.66, on the other hand, the levy will be $1.35, the basic price $11.45, which means that compared with the same time last year, that represents 47 cents a hundredweight less when producers asked precisely for a raise at least equal to the increases provided by the Anti-Inflation Board through Bill C-73, and the opposite happens, we will have a drop in incomes.
Well, the way things are going, I do think indeed that it will be very difficult for young people to get into farming with any hope of success. Agriculture will slow down and one day or another our production will not be sufficient and we will have to import. When a country imports too much food to satisfy its needs, it becomes dependant on others. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should not agree to a policy that is different for everyone. Because of a light surplus, the incomes of industrial milk producers are being reduced and on the other hand, as far as labour is concerned, wages are not reduced because there are 800,000 unemployed, because some people do not work. Those who do work are paid for what they do.
The same should apply to the dairy industry. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I want to note that millions of dollars are being wasted in various departments for all kinds of reasons. One only has to check the accounts of the Auditor General to realize that there is mismanagement in many
12778

April 13, 1976
Dairy Policy
places. When it comes to agriculture, they immediately say they cannot give more and farmers are being called a "bunch of bawlers".
People who cannot take care of their own affairs are always obliged to complain to the state. I wish these people who behave in this way would set an example by going to the country; let them buy a farm, make up a herd and show us their turnovers, which will enable us to check whether they can do better than those we are referring to today. It is a matter of simple reasoning and common sense.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we took a step backward today with this reduction of the incomes of industrial milk producers. In closing, I wish I will see the day when we can have in Canada a milk pool so that this dispute between fresh milk and industrial milk producers may come to an end. At that time, I believe we shall have a very valid solution to our problem and be able to hope that this industry will survive and that those who are involved in the dairy industry will receive higher incomes.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, the minister giveth, and the minister taketh away. I asked a question of the minister a few months ago, and in it I pointed out that farmers this year are getting less than they did 18 months ago. That was denied, but I checked and it is true. A farmer staying within his quota-and goodness knows, without his quota he will get no money-will actually get 47 cents less than he got last year. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) says 46 cents, but I say 47 cents less.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it all depends on what the production is. The farmers agreed with this policy, and agreed to pay the storage costs, the marketing costs of this product on the world market, etc., and we put in an extra $200 million last year. We are putting in an extra $49 million this year. We are putting approximately $84 million more into the dairy industry this year than last year. The cheques of dairy farmers may be less because they are paying-and they agreed to pay-for the world distribution of the surplus product. That is what they are involved in, and that is what the levy is for. That is what the hon. member is talking about. They will have to pay the extra levy. If the hon. member thinks I am happy about that, he is wrong. This is not all my doing. It is partly their doing and also the doing of the provincial marketing boards.


John Raymond Ellis: The fact is that the farmer is getting less in his pay cheque every month than he was getting last year. In order to stay within the quota, I should like to ask the minister if there is any other way-other than in fact killing off producing animals-to cut back a farmer's quota in this dairy year.


Eugene Whelan: I do not fully understand what the hon. member means by "killing off" animals. We know that there were many dairy cows which should have been called from herds last year, and they were not mainly because, as was said by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), beef prices were low, so those cows were kept in production one year longer. We estimate that there are at the present time between 150,000 and 200,000 dairy cows which should be

called from dairy herds. Whether they will be, I do not know; but we do know there is a larger number going to market at the present time because the price for kill cows is better than it has been for over two years. Good kill cows bring about 30 cents per pound. The hon. member is trying to intimate that we are giving dairy farmers less, and that the government cares less about dairy farmers. The reason I did not bring in this program before April 1 was that we were trying to work out the very best program we could.
It amounts to approximately $84 million more being put into this program. The farmers will have to pay part of that back, but they agreed to do so. The dairy farmers of Canada agreed to that kind of policy. It will create hardship for some dairy farmers; there is no doubt about that. But if hon. members are suggesting we should put in a few hundred million dollars more, they should say so.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, regarding cheese imports, we know that they have been held at 50 million pounds this year. The minister mentioned that in his statement. What happens next year? The minister says he now has a long-term dairy policy. We have asked for that for years. But will he change the rules in the middle of the game next year? Will he go back to what he originally decided upon? Just how can people make plans for the future?


Eugene Whelan: Never before last year did we have an import control system. We initiated the import permit system for bringing specialty cheeses into Canada. Never before did we have that. It was hailed by dairy farmers and by the dairy processing industry as a good thing because they needed that protection. We said that we would work toward allowing increased imports into our country, but at the same time we also said we would work toward making Canada self-sufficient in its own dairy needs. That may sound contradictory, but we also made a statement to the effect that the figure will not increase above 50 million pounds this year.
We are also negotiating with the countries which are subsidizing those cheese products into Canada and trying to work out a proper program so that their treasuries will discontinue the high subsidization of some of those cheese products coming into Canada. As it stands, our cheese producers and dairy farmers cannot compete. I do not intend to allow this figure to increase, and as long as I am Minister of Agriculture I will work toward decreasing it and making sure that farmers do not have to compete unfairly with regard to these products.
These products come mainly from 16 countries, but as many as 27 countries export specialty cheeses to Canada. Some of them export in small amounts. Our processors would never process cheese in the minute quantities which are coming in, because it would not be economic for them. They have told me that with the present facilities for cheese manufacturing in Canada, the most they would be able to produce would be 75 per cent specialty cheeses.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, the minister on more than one occasion has expressed his concern over the importation into Canada of heavily subsidized dairy products from abroad. He said at one point the government may be
April 13, 1976

prepared to take some action with respect to this. Assuming the minister is unsuccessful in persuading foreign governments who are currently subsidizing dairy products which they are dumping on the market in Canada, is the minister willing to make representations to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to decrease the quota of cheese allowed to be imported into Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that was seriously considered. We thought of decreasing the quota from 50 million pounds to 40 million pounds of cheese a year. I work very closely with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and naturally his officials and mine are in consultation on this matter at all times. They are the ones who are trying to negotiate in this matter. The United States was successful in negotiating with the exporters of cheese to their country so that they no longer have highly subsidized cheese coming into the United States. Often the United States is pictured as having a great system of free marketing, but in fact they only allow 3 per cent of their dairy products to be imported into the country. Our country allows 5 per cent.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What I am trying to get clear from the minister is how long he will continue to allow foreign countries to dump heavily subsidized dairy products on Canadian markets. When will the government be prepared to take action if these other countries refuse to change their policy, and when will the government decide to impose much greater restrictions on the importation of heavily subsidized dairy products into Canada?


Eugene Whelan: I think we must recognize that many of the cheeses that come into Canada are high-priced cheeses. We are negotiating in particular with countries which are exporting highly subsidized commodities to Canada. If we do not make the progress which I think we should, I will be recommending to my colleagues in cabinet that we take some other form of action to make sure that our producers do not have to compete in an unfair manner with this type of product.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I intend to put an end to these questions by recognizing the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), then the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), and finally the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, following the meeting the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has had with his provincial counterparts, can he inform the House whether limits on margarine production, or butter substitute, as well as synthetic ice cream were discussed as they were before 1960? The minister knows, of course, that before 1960 the provinces had control over margarine production and volume. At the present time, I believe they have very little control and margarine accounts for an ever larger slice of the market.


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not discussed that with the provinces. We have discussed with them an advertising program to sell dairy products, not just put them on a shelf in some supermarket or dairy store and hope people will buy them. We have a high quality product
Dairy Policy
which we think can be sold, and we just hope people will buy it. We know there are many uses for dairy products of which perhaps the public is not aware. For instance, even with the increase in the price of skim milk powder, people will be paying approximately 18 Vi cents for a 40-ounce drink. With one pound of skim milk powder you get four quarts of milk, which means that you have 40 ounces for 18'/2 cents. You could not even get the best soft drink at that price, and it would have none of the protein, minerals and vitamins that skim milk powder has.


Mr.   La Salle@: Mr. Speaker, I will probably have to ask a twofold question, since I think my time is running short. The minister is aware of the representations which have been made by the federation that storage costs be fully absorbed by the government, and that the deduction not be increased but remain stable at 65 cents. If this deduction has gone up to $1.35, and the minister is referring to an additional credit of $84 million under the dairy policy, I figure that those $84 million the minister is referring to will be shared between the producer and the government. What thus would be the percentage the producer will have to contribute in those $84 million? Since the minister said that the producers had accepted these proposals, I would like him to tell us clearly whether the producers have accepted the program he has submitted to us this afternoon.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I said in my presentation to the House earlier that it would be $24 million. In the past we have paid, automatically, $9 million in storage costs, etc., but this year it will be $24 million. However, the very fact that CIDA is putting $20 million into the program to take ownership of approximately 75 million pounds of skim milk powder will mean that dairy farmers will not have to handle storage, financing costs, holding charges, etc., for the product. On world markets that could mean between 75 million and 80 million pounds of skim milk powder sold, and this would alleviate the storage problem here and it would eliminate the surplus problem. The storage problem and costs are of great concern to producers, and CIDA's action in this respect will alleviate it greatly.


Mr. McCain:: In order that the minister's program works, the provinces must know what the individual provincial quotas are, and the governmental structure of the commission itself must have ways and means of verifying the amounts of milk delivered province by province. Is the machinery in place so that each province will get its fair quota of milk, and can they be confident that the statistical reports in this regard will be accurate and fair?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because last year each industrial milk producer was on a strict quota. They will be monitored month by month and watched closely, something which could not be done in the dairy year 1975-76.

Order Paper Questions


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Saint-Henri) moved: that the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, tabled in the House on April 7, 1976, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Robert Jardine McCleave: that the eighth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Thursday, April 8, 1976, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Del-ta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders be authorized to consider and make recommendations upon the fees paid by the British Columbia Telephone Company in relation to Bill S-ll.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member would require the unanimous consent of the House in order to present the motion at this time. Is the House agreed?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If there is the unanimous consent of the House, perhaps we might put the matter over until a later date, at which time we would ask the permission of the House to revert to motions to deal with the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

April 13, 1976
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,161, 4,162, 4,163, 4,440, 4,612, 4,769, 4,923, 4,943 and 4,949.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What are the criteria for admission of an inmate to the Quebec Regional Psychiatric Centre?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: The same criteria apply to all Regional Psychiatric Centres. The major group of cases which receives priority for psychiatric treatment is, naturally, those suffering from acute mental illness and then those whose illnesses are either sub-acute or chronic. This is comparable with the criteria used in any psychiatric treatment to such patients, the Psychiatric Centres of the Canadian Penitentiary Service have also been given the task of developing pilot treatment programs for such groups as sexual offenders, drug addicts and offenders with personality disorders.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What are the criteria for admission of an inmate to the Ontario Regional Psychiatric Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: See reply to Question 4,161.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What are the criteria for admission of an inmate to the Pacific Regional Psychiatric Centre?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: See reply to Question 4,161.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Do penitentiaries have programmes for persons of native ancestry and, if so (a) which penitentiaries (b) what types of programmes and, in each case, are they staffed by the government or by volunteers from outside groups?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Yes. (a) Springhill Institution, Dorchester Penitentiary, Westmorland Institution, Millhaven Institution, Prison for Women, Collins Bay Institution, Regional Reception Centre (Ontario), Joyceville Institution, Wark-worth Institution, Bowden Institution, Drumheller Institution, Rockwood Institution, Saskatchewan Penitentiary,
April 13, 1976

Saskatchewan Farm Annex, Stony Mountain Institution, British Columbia Penitentiary, Mountain Prison, Matsqui Institution, William Head Institution, Agassiz Correctional Camp, Robson Centre, Ferndale Institution, (b) Outside participants include community members and families, Native community organizations are awarded contracts to provide services to particular institutions by means of a Native Liaison Officer delegated by that organization. The programs consist in providing liaison services with native inmates, native communities and families of inmates. Some provide an alcohol and drug abuse training program. They help the inmate to maintain an identification with the people to native origin. The members are often involved in developing folklore and learning native crafts. The groups meet regularly and guest speakers are invited occasionally.
(a) and (b)
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Whiteway: For the year 1975, were firearms or other military weapons stolen, or inventory unaccounted for in the Armed Forces and, if so, in each case (a) what was the model name, (b) how many, (c) what was the value?
Hon, James Richardson (Minister of National Defence): From the large number of fire arms used in the Regular Forces as well as in the Reserves and in the Cadet units including weapons lost on training exercises less than 20 weapons are currently unaccounted for. Details are set out in the following statement.
Summary of
Stolen Weapons and Unaccounted for Inventory Loss of Weapons in the Canadian Forces During 1975
Incident	Quantity Weapon	Total value	Quantity recovered	Quantity unaccounted for	unaccounted for weapons $252. 130.1.	Lost from Militia Unit	1	9mm pistol	$252.	0	1	1	9mm SMG Cl	130.	0	1	2.	Lost from Cadet Unit	3	.303 rifles (.22 bore)	105.	2	1	35.3.	Lost from Militia Unit	1	.22 pistol	25.	1	4.	Lost from Cadet Unit	7	.303 rifles (.22 bore)	245.	0	7	245.	2453	.22 rifles	159.	0	3	159.5.	Lost from Militia Unit	1	9mm pistol	252.	1	0	6.	Lost from Militia Unit	1	7.62 FNC2 rifle	328.	1	0	7.	Lost from Regular Force Unit	1	9mm pistol	252.	0	1	252.8.	Lost from Commercial Carrier	10	M61 Grenades	25.	10	0	9.	Lost from Regular Force Unit	2	M61 Grenades	5.	2	0	10.	Loss by Cadet Unit	1	.303 rifle (drill purpose)	35.	0	1	35.11.	Loss by Militia Unit	1	7.62 FNC1 rifle	275.	0	1	275.12.	Lost from Regular Force Unit	1	9mm pistol	252.	1	0	13.	Lost from Regular Force Unit	1	7.62 FNC1 rifle	275.	1	0	14.	Lost from Regular Force Unit	2	9mm pistols	504.	2	0	1	9mm SMG Cl	130.	1	0	15.	Lost from Regular Force Unit	1	9mm SMG Cl	130.	1	0	16.	Lost from Regular Force Unit	1	9mm pistol	252.	1	0	17.	Training loss by Regular Force Unit	1	9mm SMG Cl	130.	0	1	130.18.	Lost from Regular Force Unit	1	9mm pistol	252.	1	0 [DOT]	19.	Loss by Militia Unit	1	7.62 FNC2 rifle	328.	1	0	2	7.62 FNC1 rifles	550.	1	1	275.3	9mm pistols	756.	3	0	5	.22 rifles	265.	5	0	23	FN Breech Blocks	345.	3	20	300.20.	Training Loss by Regular Force Unit	1	9mm SMG Cl	130.	0	1	130.
Total $6,387.
Total $2,218.

April 13, 1976
Order Paper Questions
(c) Total values of:
Lost weapons	$6,387
Recovered weapons	$4,169
Unaccounted for/not recovered weapons	$2,712


Mr. Symes: How many persons have had their mail service and mailing privileges revoked (a) under section 7 of the Post Office Act since such provision came into force, (b) for attempting to distribute hate literature through the mails?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: (a) Seventy-nine persons and/or firms, (b) Five persons and/or firms had their mailing privileges revoked for using the mails to distribute hate literature, actions taken under Obscenity Section 164 of the Canadian Criminal Code prior to section 281.2 being adopted as law in 1969. No action was taken under Section 281.2 of the Canadian Criminal Code (Hate Propaganda).


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): Since January 1973, has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or any other governmental agency responsible for products inspection imposed any fines on Canadian merchants guilty of consumer fraud and, if so, what (a) was the total amount, (b) was the total number of merchants involved, (c) was the number of merchants involved by province, (d) was the average amount of fines, by province, (e) use was made of the money derived from the fines?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Since January 1973, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has prosecuted Canadian merchants for consumer fraud offences. The fines of course, were imposed by the courts, (a) $64,620; (b) 227; (c) Newfoundland, 3; P.E.I., 0; Nova Scotia, 2; New Brunswick, 1; Quebec, 113; Ontario, 93; Manitoba, 3; Saskatchewan, 7; Alberta, 4; British Columbia, 1; Total, 227. (d) Newfoundland, $200; P.E.I., not applicable; Nova Scotia, $137 New Brunswick, $50; Quebec, $230; Ontario, $275; Manitoba, $2,200; Saskatchewan, $421; Alberta, $175; British Columbia, $100. (e) The money derived from fines is put into the consolidated Revenue Fund for use by the government.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the cost of Dr. Ezzat Abdel Fattah's report on public attitudes toward capital punishment in Canada?
2.	How many persons did Dr. Fattah interview and, in each case, what was their (a) religion, (b) language, (c) age?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. $5,762.
2. Dr. E. A. Fattah did not interview anyone. The report reviews the existing research literature on public attitudes towards capital punishment in Canada. This literature included a variety of systematic surveys of adults representing all major religion, language and age groups in Canada.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Was the position of Assistant Deputy Minister in the Bureau of Consumer Affairs, recently filled by Mr. Michael McCabe, advertised and, if so (a) in what locations, (b) was a previous competition held for the same position prior to Mr. McCabe's appointment?
2.	Did Mr. Michael McCabe run as a candidate for the Liberal Party at any time, either federally or provincially?
3.	Has Mr. Michael McCabe worked previously for a cabinet minister and, if so (a) on what dates, (b) in what capacity?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: 1. No, the position was filled following an internal competition within the Public Service, (a) Not applicable, (b) The previous incumbent was appointed as a result of a similar competitive process.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. (a) April 1963, June 1968. (b) Executive Assistant.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford that Bill C-83, for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Four-thirty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being 4.30 o'clock, pursuant to order made Thursday, April 8, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to Bill C-83, an act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, and every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the said bill. Call in the members.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Woolliams) which was negatived on the following division.
April 13, 1976

(Division No. 125)
Alexander	YEAS Messrs. Grafftey	McCleaveAlkcnbrack	Hamilton	McGrathAllard	(Swift Current-	McKenzieBaker	Maple Creek)	McKinley(Grenville-Carlcton)	Hargrave	McKinnonBalfour	Hees	MitgesBawden	Hnatyshyn	MuirBeatty	Holmes	MunroBeaudoin	Howie	(Esquimalt-SaaniBenjamin	Huntington	MurtaBrisco	Jelinek	NeilCadieu	Johnston	NielsenCaouette	Kempling	Nowlan(Villeneuve)	Knowles	OberleCaouette	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	O'Sullivan(Temiscamingue)	Korchinski	Pa proskiClark	Lambert	Peters(Rocky Mountain)	(Bcllechasse)	ReynoldsClarke	Lambert	Ritchie(Vancouver Quadra)	(Edmonton West)	RocheCoates	La Salle	RondeauDarling	Lavoie	RynardDick	Lawrence	SchellenbergerDiefenbaker	MacDonald	ScottDinsdale	(Egmont)	SmithDionne	MacDonald (Miss)	(Churchill)(Kamouraska)	(Kingston and the	StanfieldEllis	Islands)	StevensElzinga	MacKay	StewartEpp	Mac Lean	(Marquette)Fairweather	Macquarrie	WatsonFirth	Malone	WhitewayForrestall	Marshall	WiseFraser	Masniuk	WoolliamsFriesen	Mazankowski	Yewchuk -90.Gauthier	McCain	(Roberval) Abbott	NAYS Messrs. Douglas	LangAllmand	(Bruce-Grey)	LangloisAnderson	Douglas	LanielAndres	(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	Leblanc(Lincoln)	The Islands)	(Laurier)Appolloni (Mrs.)	Drury	LeBlancBaker	Duclos	(Westmorland-Kei(Gander-Twillingate)	Dupont	LeeBasford	Dupras	LefebvreBechard	Ethier	LeggattBegin (Miss)	Faulkner	LessardBlackburn	Fleming	LoiselleBlais	Foster	(Chambly)Blaker	Fox	LoiselleBlouin	Francis	(Saint-Henri)Boulanger	Gauthier	LumleyBreau	(Ottawa-Vanier)	MacdonaldBrewin	Gendron	(Rosedale)Broadbent	Gilbert	MacFarlaneBuchanan	Gillespie	MacGuiganBussieres	Goodalc	MackaseyCaccia	Goyer	MarchandCafik	Gray	(Kamloops-Caribo'Campagnolo (Mrs.)	Guay	MartinCampbell (Miss)	(St. Boniface)	Mclsaac(South Western Nova)	Guay	McRaeCaron	(Levis)	MilneChretien	Haidasz	MunroClermont	Harquail	(Hamilton East)Collenettc	Herbert	Nicholson (Miss)Comlois	Holt (Mrs.)	NystromCondon	Hopkins	O'ConnellCorbin	Isabelle	OlivierCorriveau	Jamieson	OrlikowCote	Joyal	ParentCullen	Kaplan	PearsallCyr	Knowles	PelletierDanson	(Winnipeg	PennerDaudlin	North Centre)	PhilbrookDionne	Lachance	Pinard(Northumberland-	Lajoie	PortelanceMiramichi)	Lalonde	Poulin
Adjournment Motion Messrs.
Prud'homme	Roy	StewartRailton	(Timmins)	(Cochrane)Reid	Roy	StolleryRichardson	(Laval)	SymesRoberts	Saltsman	TcssierRobinson	Sharp	TrudeauRodriguez	Smith	TurnerRompkey	(Saint-Jean)	YanakisRooney	Stanbury	Young-129.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. The motion is carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt)-Finance-Monitoring of income of insurance agents in British Columbia-Government position; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) Trade- Effect of repeal of section 272 of Railway Act on flour and grain exports-Government action.
It being five o'clock, pursuant to order made Friday, February 27, 1976, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills. Is it understood and agreed that the public bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Bill C-311, shall be considered at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
12784

April 13, 1976
Citizenship



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-311, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay for appearance in Citizenship Court), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-311 is a very short bill which would add just one new clause to the Canadian Citizenship Act. I think I could best indicate what the new clause would do if I were to read its actual wording, which is as follows:
An applicant for a certificate of citizenship who is required under any of the provisions of this Act to appear before the court, when such applicant is regularly employed during the time he is required to appear, shall be granted by his employer such time off work, up to a maximum of three hours for any one appearance, as may be necessary to enable the applicant to appear before the court, and no employer shall make any deduction from the pay of any such employee nor impose upon or exact from him any penalty by reason of his absence from his work for the length of time specified in this section, provided that the absence is for the purpose specified herein.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that those words as set out in Bill C-311 are proposed by the bill to be made a new section 29.1 of the Canadian Citizenship Act. The only change that would have to be made relates to the question of where that new clause would be inserted. As hon. members are aware, a new Canadian Citizenship Act is under way, Bill C-20; indeed it will be under debate later today.
When I suggest that the new clause be numbered 29.1, that is in relation to the act as it now stands. After all, I have no alternative but to seek to amend the law as it stands; I cannot at this point propose to amend a law that has not yet been passed. Offhand I would say that perhaps the best place to put this proposed clause in the new bill would be following clause 26. In other words, if it were made section 26.1 instead of 29.1 it would fit in the new bill quite appropriately.
I suggest that the idea contained in this bill is one of those good ideas-call it a motherhood provision if you wish-to which no one can really take any objection. Despite the difficulties that private members have in this hour with their bills, I hope that this bill will be looked upon sympathetically. Certainly I would have no objection if instead of passing the bill as it is, the House would refer the subject matter to the appropriate committee, but I hope that the House will be quite ready to accept the idea itself.
I have borrowed the idea from the Canada Elections Act. As all hon. members are aware, there is a provision in that legislation that permits an elector on election day to have a certain amount of time off work without loss of pay in order to enable him to cast his vote in a federal election. If-and I am sure we do-we regard the applying for and obtaining of Canadian citizenship an important matter, I think that those persons who take this step should be encouraged to go through with it, should be encouraged to appear before the court when they have to make an application, and should be encouraged to appear before the

court when their citizenship certificate is granted. In some cases this does present a hardship, namely, that pay is lost. In the case of the Canada Elections Act, of course, we made a provision that could apply quite often in a person's lifetime. Here we are making a provision that could apply only once in a person's lifetime.
So, Mr. Speaker, I present the idea to the House. I do not think it needs to be argued at length; it is a very simple proposal. I have read the whole of the clause. As I say, the proposal is quite direct, namely, that applicants for citizenship who have to appear before a court of citizenship for any reason should be given up to three hours off work without loss of pay in order for them to make that appearance.
In the explanatory notes to the bill I have explained what it does, but I have this sentence at the end:
It is felt that persons seeking Canadian citizenship should be granted this recognition of the importance of the step they are taking.
That is the way I feel about it, Mr. Speaker. Applying for and obtaining citizenship is an important step, and this bit of recognition is well worth the favourable consideration of the House of Commons. I hope the House will pronounce favourably on the idea during this private members' hour.


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has drawn to our attention a financial difficulty that may be faced by some applicants for citizenship in Canada. The question he has raised is well worthy of our attention-the possible financial cost of taking time off from work to appear before a citizenship court in the course of acquiring Canadian citizenship. He has said this is a very important step in the life of an applicant, as indeed it is. It is taken once in a lifetime. It is a very solemn moment not only for the applicant but, indeed, an important moment for all citizens of Canada. The hon. member has suggested we should give some recognition to that importance. I am going to argue that the government and the Parliament of Canada have given very great importance to that moment and, in fact, have taken more appropriate means than those suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to cope with what may be for some a financial difficulty.
The hon. member proposes that employers be required by law to grant up to three hours in time and pay for any one appearance by an applicant for citizenship. He suggests that such a requirement in our law would be similar to the requirement in the Canada Elections Act regarding time off and pay regulations. I think this is very different from that circumstance, as I will attempt to show in the course of my remarks.
While the hon. member's objective of removing any possible serious financial obstacle is a desirable one, the means proposed do not appear to me to be necessary nor, indeed, appropriate, and may in fact be of doubtful constitutional validity, although it is not on that latter point that I would rest my argument.
Other means have been developed and are in the course of being developed to accomplish the same thing; that is, to alleviate possible financial difficulties and to do this in a
April 13, 1976

way that does not transfer the burden to the employer. We should, therefore, assess rather carefully what appears on the surface to be an attractive proposal. We should assess how difficult or serious the problem is and whether it can be resolved better in some other way, as I believe it can, and whether in fact it is being resolved better in some other fashion, as I believe it is.
Under the present act, an applicant for citizenship must go to the office of the citizenship court on three occasions. He must go first to make an application and this involves documentation. On the second occasion, the applicant attends a hearing before a citizenship judge and this involves an assessment of whether the applicant meets the requirements of the act. On the third occasion, the applicant attends a presentation ceremony during which he or she takes the oath of allegiance.
The time-frame mentioned in the hon. member's bill is undoubtedly appropriate and covers any one or all of these three occasions when the applicant goes before one of the offices of the court, that is to say, three hours. Some of these occasions may be over within 15 minutes and some may in fact extend for roughly three hours.
What is being done currently to face up to the possible problem raised by. the hon. member? Over the past three or four years the Department of the Secretary of State has developed an outreach program to meet the very problem raised by the hon. member, as well as to encourage landed immigrants to come forward with applications and to take that very important and solemn step of becoming a citizen of Canada. The outreach program consists of three services: first, storefront offices, second, mobile teams of examiners; third, night courts. One could add a fourth, the practice of the courts of scheduling appearances by appointment or arrangement. In addition to these outreach services, which I should like to describe at greater length, there are 15 citizenship courts in Canada and some 12 sub-courts to meet the convenience of applicants.
Let us consider for the moment the outreach services. The storefront offices have been established in the centres of greatest pressure, that is to say, in Toronto and Montreal where there are now four such storefront offices. They are open in the evenings and on weekends when applications for citizenship can be made. If the demand arises, the Department of the Secretary of State is prepared to extend these storefront offices to other locations; that is, the applicants can meet that first occasion or appearance where the pressure has been the greatest and where the demand is the greatest, and they can do that in a manner which does not involve loss of work time or pay. There are now four mobile teams of examiners operating in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Hamilton. In these four cities some 78 per cent of all applications are currently received. These mobile teams also take applications in such prearranged locations as schools, community halls, places of work, and so forth.
These two services enable applicants to make their application at times convenient to them, with no loss of time whatever. They are available in cities where over three-quarters of citizenship applications are currently being received. Again, it is a service that may be extended if communities seek it, if volunteer organizations ask for it and demonstrate a need. These two services of the outreach
Citizenship
program are in fact being used, so it is evident they are responding to a problem of the kind raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but in a different way from that which he has proposed.
For example, in the most active of these storefront offices, the Dufferin Street store in Toronto, last year-and the office was open, I think, for only six months-some 12,536 applications were received. This represents something under one-fifth of all applications in Canada. They were received either during the day, if convenient, in the evening or on weekends without requiring any loss of work time to the applicants.
The two storefront offices in Montreal handled about one-quarter of the applications in that city; over 5,000 out of over 18,000 applications. The mobile teams in Toronto, in 1975, took over 2,400 applications-and this is a service which is still in the early stages of development. So these outreach services are in fact supplying an answer to a certain need, not only financial but of convenience.
In addition to the storefront offices and the mobile teams, the department has tried to respond to needs by establishing night courts, again to avoid inconvenience and unnecessary financial hardship. These night courts have been established mainly in Toronto on an experimental basis in response to an initiative taken in the community of Toronto. The night courts are not for applications but for hearings and for ceremonies, the other two occasions when applicants go to the offices of the citizenship courts.
Moreover, it is now practice in respect of citizenship courts to arrange appointment times for these hearings for applicants to avoid the situation where persons have to attend and wait for extended periods of time in a line-up. This meets the need of those who may be on shift work. Persons ask for the most convenient times for an appointment and arrangements are made. These night courts and arranged appointments should alleviate the kind of problem raised by the hon. member
Again, this is a service the department is prepared to extend to other communities should a request for such arise. It is perhaps natural that the request should have arisen first in Ontario, where over half of all applications occur, and that the first response would be made there because of the activity of voluntary associations which requested it. Such activities are open to other communities which wish to seek the same thing without, as I say, the necessity of passing a law of parliament which would place the cost on the employers of those applicants for citizenship.
Some problem may remain in respect of the visit to the court for the citizenship ceremony. However, this to some extent has been alleviated by the night courts in Toronto and by night courts which have in fact been held in other cities, although not as frequently as in Toronto but, again, in response to community pressure and requests. To the extent, therefore, that a problem may remain, it seems to relate rather to the state of the community organization and voluntary community association activity rather than to the absence of a means to respond. Some exploration, in fact, of the remaining problem in respect of the night courts is presently under way in Montreal. The department
21804-48'/2
April 13, 1976

Citizenship
is prepared to respond in a similar manner should the need and demand become effective. The first storefronts and mobile teams were established in Toronto about three years ago and, as I say, may be expanded into other cities.
There is a certain other argument which I think should be raised in this House relative to points made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I refer to the possible constitutional problem with regard to his proposal. His proposal, if adopted, might in fact be applicable in law only to companies which lie in the federal jurisdiction. It may be, if adopted, that it will not be applicable to companies that have been incorporated under provincial law and lie in the field of provincial jurisdiction.
In addition, I think the hon. member cannot argue that the granting of citizenship ranks in the same order or measure as general elections which establish this very parliament. The elections establish the government of the country. It is obviously an essential national process. It is a requirement of our constitution that elections be held at least every five years. It is a democratic need that all citizens be able to participate. It is very difficult indeed to extend that need to the citizenship process, which is an individual choice, an individual act which occurs once in a lifetime, important as it is for all of us. It is extremely difficult to extend that argument to Canadian elections to the circumstances of citizenship applicants. It is more a matter of convenience to the case of the hon. member, but it really weakens his case because of the doubtful constitutional validity on which it rests. There is a very evident difference between a general election and the taking of citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say this is an important problem. The problem is being met partly by means already developed and by means which are capable of extension by a department which took the initiative to meet this problem in innovative ways and is trying to bring the citizenship process to the people. This is a process which can be extended by community action in other cities in a better manner than through statutory or legal action by this parliament which in any case would be of doubtful constitutional validity.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset permit me to establish my position. I will be opposing Bill C-311 because I do not feel we should have to pay people to become Canadian citizens. Certainly it would almost appear to be a shame for me this afternoon to have to oppose a private member's bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), a gentleman whom I respect greatly as a member of this House. Ever since I came here as a new member I have had great admiration and respect for the proposer of Bill C-311. However, as I shall demonstrate in my remarks I do not feel this to be a wise move or one in which the government should be involved. It would place an additional burden on the employer by requesting that he expend additional funds to allow persons desirous of becoming Canadian citizens time off from their duties.
During the vote this afternoon I had time to reflect on the fact that since it is so rarely that the New Democratic Party votes against our government, it is almost a shame that I have to speak against Bill C-311 as proposed by the

hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a member of that party.
However, one does wonder from time to time, when this type of suggestion is made in the House, whether it might just be another thread of the socialist fabric that we sometimes see appearing on the scene in Canada. Let me say, on behalf of the Liberal Party, that the buck stops here and we do not endorse or support this type of program. On the contrary, I would say we should be emphasizing and encouraging the necessity for greater productivity in this country. We have acknowledged and accepted our responsibility in this regard in this time of restraint. The restraint legislation, by the way, as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other authorities throughout the country is working, contrary to some of the mutterings by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) and members on the other side of the House. However, it is always somewhat amusing to me to hear recommendations from the opposition parties for the spending of more money, or the spending of someone else's money, to be more precise.
Bill C-311 asks for a contribution of money to persons who aspire to be Canadians. That money will, of course, be spent by someone other than the New Democratic Party. It will be spent by employers and by people who will have to carry the burden.
Hon. members who have travelled throughout the world know only too well the feeling of pride one has on returning to one's native land. We acknowledge that pride when we think of the freedom, the good life, the prosperity, the availability of medicine and education, and all the excellent facilities and programs which are available to Canadians. I am hard put to understand why we should entertain Bill C-311 under which we would be reimbursing prospective Canadians.
I suppose it could be said, after listening to some of the allegations and innuendos from the other side of the House, that this could almost be considered a form of a bribe to entice an individual to become a Canadian. Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but there are some who have this type of warped mentality, and sometimes we witness it in the House.
However, if we consider this proposition, we would not want to support Bill C-311 because we would be encouraging a situation where we might be accused of offering some sort of incentive, which I suggest might be called a bribe, for someone to take on the great honour of becoming a Canadian citizen.
If we are going to encourage law, order, peace, security, and justice in Canada, as is the case we hope with the New Democratic Party, I think we should be urging programs which will encourage people to respect authority, to respect police, and to respect teachers in schools. That is the type of program we should be supporting, and we should not start new Canadians who are coming into the country and who want to become Canadians off on the wrong foot by giving them the impression that this is the way it works in Canada. They should not be given the impression that they can be paid to become Canadian citizens.
April 13, 1976

I think this is a weak proposition. It would only foster an attitude on the part of prospective Canadians that this country is weak and that everyone is paid or rewarded with money to do certain things. I believe anyone who sincerely wishes to become a Canadian, who meets all the criteria, who takes it upon himself to qualify and who takes the necessary steps to become a Canadian, should not in any way expect to be paid to do this.
When we consider the amounts of money which have already been expended by Canadians for citizenship courts, subcourts, store fronts and mobile teams operating across this country, together with other services rendered to prospective Canadians, surely we should not be asked to pay a potential Canadian to become a Canadian.
There are many people in my constituency who are from foreign countries and who have become Canadians. A good many of them are in the professions and would not expect to receive remuneration or monetary rewards for becoming Canadians. Those whom I have had occasion to befriend and with whom I have become acquainted have taken their places in Canadian society. In one particular family I can think of, the son is now a general practitioner in Halifax, and the daughter is a dietician. These people came to Canada and accepted it with all its beauty and opportunity. At no time did they expect any reward to be held out to entice them to become Canadians. They made the decision and sincerely wanted to become Canadians.
Once in private members' hour when one of my colleagues introduced a bill which would have involved the expenditure of money outside this country-I refer to the bill proposing construction of a road corridor in the United States-I was convinced then, and I still am, that it was my duty to speak against that bill because of the need for the upkeep and construction of highways in our own country, particularly with regard to the situation in my riding in New Brunswick. I found it necessary to speak against that bill, and I understand there will be another similar private member's bill soon, one which we expected to be before the House last week. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) introduced that bill with respect to the proposed construction of a tunnel between Dartmouth and Halifax. I will attempt to be placed on the roster to speak against that bill because adequate moneys have already been expended in that area, something to the tune of $80 million, for existing bridges. I do not see any need for a tunnel. What I am leading up to is that when I see the type of proposition contained in Bill C-311, I am convinced that we must discourage it because it would be poor legislation.
In the time afforded to me I have expressed my disagreement, but I also wish to profit from this opportunity and to go on record, as a new member in this House, to say that notwithstanding my disagreement with Bill C-311, I have the utmost respect for the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question before he sits down?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. member permit a question?
Citizenship


Maurice James Harquail: With just one qualification, provided it is a fair question.


An hon. Member:: Forget it, then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) views my bill, which would require employers not to deduct one's pay for the time spent appearing in citizenship court, as a bribe to persons to become Canadian citizens, how does he feel about the same provision in the Canada Elections Act, put there by the Liberal government, which permits people to take time off work without loss of pay in order to vote? Is that also a bribe?


Maurice James Harquail: I believe I indicated that I would be disposed to respond to the question. With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker-I will not be making a ruling-I wish to say that I agree with my colleague that the question is not in order and does not apply to what I said this afternoon. Let the record be clear that that is not what I said nor was it my intention to say that. That is contrary to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just indicated. However, let me assure him-and I know he supports this and so has his party in the past-that we certainly take credit for most of the good programs we have introduced in the House, and when I say we I mean the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, is that the end of the debate on Bill C-311?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: No, the debate is still continuing.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to raise an issue which under the rules I am required to raise at the first opportunity following any incident that occurs in the House. I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion that perhaps my point is a question of privilege, therefore I will enclose my remarks within the ambit of a question of privilege also.
I appreciate the difficulty that any Speaker of the House has in the hub-bub that occurs in the Chamber on the taking of a second reading vote on any bill, but for the record I want to point out that at the end of the Chamber there were seven hon. members on their feet requesting that a recorded vote be taken on Bill C-83 this afternoon. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker was not able to determine whether those people were here or were leaving.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Under the rules the hon. member is not allowed to comment on votes which have already taken place. The hon. member should bring up his point of order tomorrow when Mr. Speaker is in the chair.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is to be congratulated for having brought forward this idea in the form of a bill. It is a thought expressed in the form of an amendment the content and thrust of which is irresistible.

April 13, 1976
Citizenship
It is positive and, as the hon. member himself said, it is in the category of motherhood proposals. We on this side of the House must admit and recognize that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a grand master at that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not a
grand master, I am a grandfather.


Mr. Caccia:: I cannot recall in the past eight years since 1968 one motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that did not fall into this category. The hon. member has a real ability to catch a certain idea and put it into legislation or into proposed amendments. Nevertheless it remains in the category of motherhood, and I will explain why I have come to this conclusion.
On examining the statistics on citizenship over the past 20 years I find that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who became citizens in the course of time since Canadian citizenship has been made available, and they have done this regardless of whether or not they lost a day at work. To them Canadian citizenship was important enough to disregard any monetary consideration. When you decide to acquire it, for reasons that are different from individual to individual and therefore for which there is no set, general law, you set you mind on it and you obtain it no matter what.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: I fully understand the best intentions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but somehow I believe that a measure such as this one would cheapen the whole concept of the acquisition of Canadian citizenship, and I will explain why. Over the past 10, 15 and 20 years good employers have had a sense of pride in being Canadian and have done what the hon. member is proposing here today. So in that sense the proposal has already been adopted by people who are usually regarded as good employers. Those who are lousy employers-excuse that expression, Mr. Speaker-still do not recognize this fact and withhold the wages or salaries of those who go to acquire Canadian citizenship.
In order to meet these situations, which unfortunately still occur but which are rapidly disappearing, which arise because of these bad employers who are so narrow minded that they do not see that the day when a new Canadian acquires his citizenship is a day to celebrate, and therefore requires that recognition on the part of the employer who will say, "All right, Pasquale, or Joe, or whatever, go down town and get your citizenship; this is our way of recognizing this great day in your life", the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) has carried out a number of additional measures which were already so clearly and effectively outlined by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell).
Our hope on this side of the House is that these programs, such as Outreach, Storefronts, and the other fancy names that go with them, will not be limited only to large metropolitan centres like Montreal and Toronto but will also be implemented in centres such as cities in western Ontario where a large number of new Canadians live, and where services of this kind would be most definitely well received. There would probably be a constant need for

them for a number of years to come, not only in southwestern Ontario but also in the west and perhaps in the east.
When listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I could not help asking myself-and I must say in advance that my thought was not totally serious-why should there not be a bill that would legislate compensation for loss of wages when a person goes out to get married? Indeed, why not? The day you become a Canadian citizen is almost like your wedding day. You have decided that your relationship with your motherland should evolve into a new relationship with the country of your choice, namely, Canada, to which you are in a way becoming married on the day on which you acquire Canadian citizenship. I am the first one to admit that the similarity is somewhat shaky, nevertheless it has some validity because it is an event of such importance in an individual's life. Therefore to talk about loss of pay on such a day does not do justice to the event itself and to the idealism of the person who decides to become a citizen and therefore is ready to give up certain hours and a certain amount of income, and in fact even pays a $20 fee for the fine privilege of becoming a Canadian citizen.
Let us look at something greater than just money, particularly in the process of acquiring Canadian citizenship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: I should like to conclude my remarks- because I know others would like to speak-by saying that when applying for Canadian citizenship I can see a matter of greater concern than the matter of loss of pay. I look with great concern at the requirement, which is being introduced in the new bill which will soon be before us for debate in the House, for adequate knowledge of one of the official languages on the part of applicants and candidates for Canadian citizenship. I have looked at this matter with great distress and a deep sense of uneasiness, because from my experience over the years I have learned that Canadian citizenship involves more than facility in an official language and knowledge of the history and geography of the country.
Many new Canadians came to the east, central Canada, and the west before the first world war, between the wars, and after the second world war. Many never acquired command of or fluency in one official language, let alone adequate knowledge of it. They have not learned the capital cities of provinces or the lengths of certain rivers, but functioned well as citizens in their communities. They have raised families, sent children to school, respected the law, paid taxes, and been active in church and secular associations in their community. And they did this often without knowing English or French, history or geography. But they were damned fine citizens, even though they lacked scholastic, theoretical knowledge.
I have made known my concerns, as they are important. These matters should be aired in the debate on the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre whose intentions, I am sure, are of the best and whose fine parliamentary record we all respect.
April 13, 1976


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be brief and allow other hon. members time to speak. Frankly, this proposed measure reminds me of the Canada Elections Act. This is an urban-oriented, you might say union-sponsored type of bill. It is like a fringe benefit under some wage agreement. What about the man from Spirit River who must go to Grande Prairie? His journey will take a whole day. He must be prepared to take the whole day off.
I agree with something the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said. Canadian citizenship is an important matter. Yet coming out of his mouth some of the things he said sounded strange, as did the applause of the hon. member's colleagues. Tonight we shall debate Bill C-20, which will provide for the downgrading of the citizenship ceremony. It says that in many instances the ceremony can be performed across a desk. The bill removes the discretion of the judge in the citizenship court. The grant of citizenship will become an act of ministerial administration. What utter nonsense! I hoped that the hon. member for Davenport would insist on the dignity of the ceremony in court when new Canadians, in open court, before fellow citizens and friends, renounce their allegiance to their countries of origin.
I have participated in more citizenship court ceremonies than any member of this House. Since citizenship courts came into being I have made it a regular practice to appear in citizenship court ceremonies in Edmonton. One must be impressed at the attitude with which candidates for Canadian citizenship approach the final ceremony. One sits with great pride alongside the president of the court, on the bench, and sees the emotion, in young and old, when people go through the ceremony. One sees people who have been here above 40 years and now wish to take out Canadian citizenship. With great pride they repeat after the president of the court the oath of allegiance. I fear that, deliberately, we shall downgrade that ceremony.
I join hands with the hon. member for Davenport in saying that a man will be compensated in many cases if he will make this voluntary gesture affecting his status. But nobody is going to pay the Dutch farmer who must travel many miles to Edmonton from some outlying area. Farmers will not get paid. Why should anybody else get paid for this sort of thing? Why should anyone be paid, by law, for an exercise in good Canadian citizenship? I agree with the hon. member for Davenport. I think the reasonable employer will be the first to encourage the employee to take out citizenship as soon as possible. Only the most hardhearted employer will refuse his employee time off; and frankly he should be publicly criticized for his attitude. Or the employer will refuse when a collective agreement is narrowly interpreted by the business agent of a union. In those cases the employer will react in the same way.
Normally when a husband and wife want a little time off in order to sign papers for purchasing a house, the average employer says, "Surely to goodness the enlightened employer will give his employee time off to do these things. If in some industrial cities there are to be special night sittings of the citizenship court, that too will be a good way of doing it.
Quarantine Act
My final word-I see it is almost six o'clock-is this: in no way should the citizenship ceremony be downgraded. The discretion should be that of the judge and the award of citizenship should not be a mere administrative act. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill S-31, to amend the Quarantine Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a very few comments before the final adoption of this bill. It has received active scrutiny by members on all sides of this House. The standing committee concerned examined witnesses from the private sector as well as carefully examining government officials. We have had, as well, the benefit of study by members of the other place. We are very grateful for the attention they paid to the bill.
It is significant that the bill has proceeded to this point with no amendments being put forward either in the other place or here. I want to say on behalf of the minister that he is grateful for the co-operation and the interest shown by all members. We look forward to the final adoption of this bill, to its early proclamation, and to an opportunity to put the bill into effect.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take too much time. We have already discussed this bill in some detail when it was before the House at second reading. However, I want to express a few reservations about some of the inadequacies which surround the bill.

April 13, 1976
Quarantine Act
When the bill was first presented in the House, the parliamentary secretary indicated that it was largely to allow Canada to prepare for two large international events to be held in Canada this year, namely, the Habitat Conference in Vancouver and the Olympic Games in Montreal. Strangely enough, when the parliamentary secretary appeared before the committee, and indeed others, they tended to deny that this bill had anything to do with these two major movements of people in and out of this country in one year. It struck me as rather strange that, for some reason, they were afraid to tell us that this bill is going to have a significant bearing on these two conferences or, vice-versa, that these two conferences had a significant bearing on the bringing forward of this bill.
The bill proposes to give the minister and his officials some extraordinary powers to detain people at the port of entry, or anywhere within this country, if they have sufficient reason to believe those people may have been exposed to some communicable disease, whether it is one listed in the international agreement or some other one which is not listed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are going to find many.


Paul Yewchuk: That is right. I was not satisfied with the explanations provided by the parliamentary secretary. Indeed he was somewhat reluctant to let the officials speak on this bill in committee and insisted on answering the questions himself. I must say I was not all that confident in his expertise on these matters.
It appears that one of the diseases which the government seems to be worried about is the one known as Lassa fever, a virus disease found largely in west Africa, generally along the southern portions of the Sahara Desert. We found from testimony before the committee that Canada has a number of people involved in CUSO working in these regions. I am quite concerned about the fact that there does not appear to be adequate protection for those working in that area, particularly because of the lack of proper facilities for treatment, and indeed for isolation, and perhaps for some other reasons.
A couple of years ago Canada made an application to the World Health Organization to have Lassa fever placed on the list of communicable quarantinable diseases for international purposes. The World Health Organization rejected this application. They said in no uncertain terms that the reason, which was based on the advice of many experts, was that quarantine as far as is known is of no value from the point of view of containing the spread of this particular disease.
We also discovered during the investigation of this bill that even if we wanted to quarantine those whom we suspected of having been exposed to Lassa fever, and perhaps of having Lassa fever in the early stages as they come into this country, we do not have the facilities in which we could safely quarantine them. This is a matter of great concern to me because the approach we are using here is not to try to prevent people from coming but to delude ourselves that we can look after them once they get here, isolate them, and thus protect our own population. This happens to be a completely erroneous assumption.

The fact is that if someone comes into this country with that disease we have no way of protecting the people of Canada from it simply because it is not amenable to containment through quarantine. It is my impression that the officials of the Department of National Health agree with that proposition. I believe we should be looking at something different.
If we are concerned about that disease being brought into Canada perhaps we should consider the possibility of not allowing people to come here if they have been exposed to it, or if we have reasonable grounds to believe they may be carriers. I am not satisfied the government has considered the possibility of excluding these people rather than allowing them to come and pretending that we can isolate them safely, when in fact we cannot. Both Britain and the United States go much farther in this direction than we presently do. For example, those countries reserve the right to prevent arriving passengers from disembarking from aircraft. Suspected cases are sent back to their country of origin which then has the responsibility of dealing with them.
As to our own overseas workers it would appear from evidence given by a representative of CUSO that some of them are presently exposed to unusual danger and that the Government of Canada is taking virutally no steps to protect their health. There seems to me to be some confusion as to what should be done if one of our workers in Africa acquired Lassa fever

whether he or she would be treated there or brought home. No one was able to tell us in the committee what would happen, and I think that was rather a poor showing. It seems to me the people of Canada deserve an explanation of what the contingency plan might be. The CUSO workers themselves deserve some kind of reassurance and a clear-cut statement on what they can look forward to if they should contract this disease. There was a suggestion that an educational program might be aimed at people working in this area designed to enable them to increase their ability to protect themselves. This might be useful, but as far as I can gather there is no such program in existence at this time.
We are left then with a situation in which the government proposes changes in the Quarantine Act. I have no objection to the changes which are proposed, but I do object to the fact that the government is basing the case for those changes on the premise that the legislation will protect the population from strange and unusual diseases whereas, as I say, it will simply not do that. We know from our experience with Lassa fever in particular that workers involved in a facility where a patient is held acquire the disease themselves at a fairly high rate, whether they are attendants on the ward or laboratory workers trying to isolate a virus. So while we do not object to the passage of this legislation-it could be useful in many ways-we are expressing reservations about the government's lack of action with reference to certain specific diseases which were mentioned during the course of the study of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful that the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) should have placed on record the concerns he feels. He has done so both in the standing
April 13, 1976

committee and here in the House. Even so, I note that he and his colleagues are prepared to give this bill third reading, and that is our position. On balance we feel the government should have the extra authority set out in the bill to cope with strange and unusual diseases, and our examination of the text does not cause us any concern as far as civil liberties and rights of that kind are concerned. We are therefore prepared to support the motion for third reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


CITIZENSHIP ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-20, respecting citizenship, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Benno Friesen (for Mr. Jarvis) moved: motion No. 1:
That Bill C-20, an act respecting citizenship, be amended in Clause 5
by
(a)	striking out the word "and" in line 38 at page 4
(b)	striking out line 42 at page 4 and substituting the following
therefor:
"section 18; and
(/) in the opinion of a citizenship judge, is not shown to be of other
than good character."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in addressing the House on the report stage of this bill. We have been through the committee stage, and again it was an experience of mixed ennui and surprise. The surprise stemmed from the fact that the minister chose to introduce a number of amendments at the committee stage which we had not anticipated. Certainly I am not critical of some of the amendments that have been made which were very necessary. Others were housekeeping and simple editorial amendments. For example, I will commend him for closing the loophole in regard to deportation orders.
Another very substantial change to the bill deals with assigning jurisdiction to the provinces for land ownership in the case of non-resident aliens. I think this is a much needed amendment, one that needed to be dealt with since this has become a matter of great concern all across Canada.
It was also an experience in ennui in that we had a repetition of what occurred when we were dealing with Bill C-58. Again the minister very tightly organized the number of witnesses who were to appear. In this case something like four witnesses were allowed to appear before the committee. None of the witnesses whom members of opposition parties wanted to appear before the committee were allowed to appear. I remember specifically the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) recommended to the committee that we hear one of the judges, but this raised the hackles of government members. We could not by any means offend any of the regulations, even
Citizenship Act
though it had already been pointed out that a precedent in this regard had been set. Therefore some of the people who could have given us a wealth of experience, information, and sound guidance in discussing the amendments were kept out.
Still the government blithely keeps repeating that it wants legislation that is in the best interests of all Canadians. As I say, Mr. Speaker, under a pre-structured committee system where government members are asked to vote preferably without thinking about what they are voting on, and where opposition members are not allowed to bring in any suggestions that would at all disturb the neat orderliness of the minister and his members, it was once again an exercise in ennui.
As is his custom, the minister gave us a copy of the statement that he presented to the committee, which I appreciated because it gave us an opportunity to deal in a concrete way with his point of view. It also gave us an opportunity to review the amendments that he was presenting, as well as some of the original provisions of the bill.
In addressing myself to the bill I want again to deal with what the minister said. I might add that the amendments, he presented to the committee during committee stage made the bill, in the language used in this House, not substantially the same as it had been but very substantially different. The minister began with one of the arguments that has been a concern of members on both sides of this chamber. He said:
It-
That is the bill.
-clearly lays down certain steps the applicant must follow and certain qualifications the applicant must satisfy. Upon satisfaction of those conditions, then citizenship should follow as a right.
The operative term used by the minister there, one that expresses his philosophy, is that citizenship is a right. There is where I disagree violently with the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). I would point out that if citizenship really is a right, then it contradicts the bill itself. The Canadian Citizenship Act provides an elaborate procedure whereby a prospective citizen has to come before a quasijudicial board and a judge in order for his case to be heard, and by that process become a citizen. Yet the minister says that upon satisfaction of certain conditions that are laid down in the act, citizenship shall follow as a right. In other words, it is an automatic process.
The most obvious question we must ask ourselves is this: if all one has to do is to meet the qualifications on the application form for citizenship and the criteria that the minister has laid down before citizenship follows as a right, why do we need a citizenship judge in the first place? Why go through the judicial system to provide citizenship for our immigrants? As I have said, it is a contradiction in terms.
When I was serving on the special parliamentary committee on immigration, commonly called the green paper committee, I remember very clearly that one of our witnesses was the chairperson of the Immigration Appeal Board. She was a very astute woman who had a lot of experience in immigration as well as citizenship.

April 13, 1976
Citizenship Act
One of the members of the committee at that time spoke about providing leave to appeal to an immigrant before deportation. His argument was that landed immigrants or prospective landed immigrants should have the right of leave to appeal. The chairperson of the Immigration Appeal Board very wisely contradicted him and pointed out by means of a very good analogy that this certainly is not the case. She used the analogy of a gate to the yard before one even enters the house. She said there is nothing stopping anyone from knocking at the gate to ask permission to enter the yard and then to enter the house. That is the right of every prospective immigrant who comes to this country. We always want to adopt a welcoming attitude to immigrants. But there is no right to enter, just as there is no right for anyone to enter upon your personal property or enter your private home. Entering the yard or entering the home is more a privilege, not a right.
So I ask, Mr. Speaker, why does the minister insist that citizenship is a right when it contradicts the very process by which an applicant gains citizenship? If it is a right, why go through this whole process? It seems to me that the host country, Canada, has the right, indeed the obligation, to examine each applicant and to refuse those she chooses not to accept.
The minister went on to add in his statement:
As a corollary to this second great principle of citizenship as a right we have built into the law the possibility of forgiveness of certain conditions at certain times. The main reasons for this is that I and my predecessors responsible for Canada's citizenship law have, through the years, received letters from unfortunate people who have somehow got tangled up in the machinery of government through no fault of their own or the circumstances of whose birth and subsequent movements around the world have been such that no framers of law could have predicted.
I will readily concede, Mr. Speaker, that under any kind of system or law, circumstances might arise which would bring about unfortunate results for some applicants who apply for citizenship.
The minister is reserving unto himself the right of forgiveness. As the amendment I am proposing tonight points out, the minister has already taken away that right at this point from the judges. They are not supposed to make any assessments of character of applicants who appear before them. The minister wants to have that privilege go in the opposite direction. If there is someone who feels he has been unjustly treated by the process, he wants the opportunity to forgive him some of those things that would hinder his becoming a citizen. He wants to be granted that privilege, and I suppose that is his right as a minister of the Crown. At the same time, why take away some of the prerogatives of judges who are now performing a very good and useful function? As a matter of fact this could take away some of the burdens from the minister in the later stages of the application.
The minister went on to say that the bill gives him certain limited powers of forgiveness, and gives to the governor in council the power to help people for compassionate reasons. He then assures us that this latter power will be used with great care. I have become somewhat cynical of this kind of assurance. It is not good enough for me to have a minister tell me that he promises not to abuse

these powers but that they will be used with great care. If that is the case, then why not outline these powers within the act so that we know exactly how the minister is going to use them?
We have all too many examples in our country of people who have come here not for the welfare of Canada but for selfish or spurious reasons, not thinking of the good of our country at all. I am thinking especially of one who gained national notoriety about a year ago, a man by the name of Hardial Baines, an openly avowed Marxist. He came to this country 16 years ago, he is a landed immigrant, he applied for citizenship and was refused, but is still in the country. He openly speaks of the need for people to revolt against the capitalistic form of government. Are we to forgive that kind of man? Why is he still in the country? There is no measure in this bill or in the Immigration Act that provides powers to deport those people who have gained landed immigrant status, who have been refused citizenship, and who remain in the country. Nothing of that sort is in here.
The minister went on to say that this issue is one that quite frankly surprises him, referring to this reduction in residence requirement from five to three years. Why this should surprise him I do not know, unless he has been speaking only to those people in Peterborough or some areas of Toronto. I assure you that is not the unanimous opinion across Canada. As a matter of fact in my last mailing to my constituency I had as one of my questions whether they felt in their opinion the citizenship requirements as to residence should be reduced from five to three years. While I have not finished the entire tally, I can tell you that even on a partial tally the response has been two and a half to one in favour of maintaining the five-year limit.
Members in the House will perhaps realize from the questions I have asked in this Chamber that I have a lot of immigrants in my riding, people who have come to Surrey-White Rock within the last two or three years. These people are saying we should keep this at five years. In fact I have had letters suggesting it should be seven. I think there are some very sound reasons for maintaining the five-year residence requirement. Let me take a minute or two just to rehearse some of these reasons for the edification of the minister who is here tonight.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you move an amendment?


Benno Friesen: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) would like me to move an amendment. That just might come, but I would assure the hon. member that he does not need to promptjus for too long to get that kind of amendment.
The minister says there are some people who are ready to become citizens within three years. I do not deny that. There are a good many people who are ready for citizenship within three years. In fact there are some who are ready as soon as they arrive, and no one would deny that. Some people who have fled from very authoritarian governments felt the breath of freedom as soon as their feet touched the shores of Canada. They are thoroughly in love with the democratic system as we enjoy it here, and are ready for citizenship as soon as they come. If they are ready when they arrive and ready three years later, surely
April 13, 1976

they will still be ready in five years time. Those are the very people who appreciate citizenship so much and appreciate being members of the Canadian family to such an extent they are completely willing, perhaps inpatient at times, to wait five years before officially becoming Canadian citizens.
There was a time when immigrants coming to Canada were predominantly from Commonwealth countries. They were thoroughly familiar with the kind of parliamentary system as we practise it here, and as it is practised in other Commonwealth countries. It is completely understandable that those people from Commonwealth nations would be so familiar with our form of government as to be ready for citizenship within five years and, conceivably, ready within three years or less. The pattern of immigration has changed very much in the last decade and we can no longer assume that the majority of the people coming to our shores are familiar with our form or government.


Otto Emil Lang: But they are fast learners.


Benno Friesen: They are fast learners. Thank you, Mr. Minister of Transport. There is something you do not learn through speed reading, and that is tradition. If the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) can speed read tradition I should like him to give the formula to a lot of immigrants who come to our shores. They would love to have it.


Otto Emil Lang: Their desire is all we need.


Benno Friesen: Their desire is all we need, the minister suggests. It seems to me it would be helpful to all prospective citizens to experience at least one federal election so as to become totally familiar with our process of government. It may be in the intervening years government members could pick up a few votes, and perhaps-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to limit the hon. member's time, and he is entitled to 40 minutes as mover of the motion, but I want to bring to his attention that he has spent a good portion of his time on subjects away from the subject matter of the motion before us. The amendment has to do with the character of the applicant, and I think the hon. member should return to the subject matter.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, as you say, the amendment has to do with the good character of the applicant. I am speaking of those ingredients that contribute to the good character of our immigrants and our citizens, so I do feel I am on topic.
As I was saying, I think it would be good for prospective citizens to experience at least one federal election com-paign in order to know a little bit more of what our system is all about.
Why is it we think we are injuring people by asking them to wait for five years? The minister wants to make it as easy as possible, and this is where the amendment comes into play. The minister at the committee raised a point regarding Clause 5, sub-clause (1), paragraph (b), sub-paragraph (i) regarding the matter of residency required. The operative part states:
Citizenship Act
(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 minister was the picture of injured innocence in the committee when he raised the matter that we would object to that particular clause in the bill whereby someone could come to Canada and receive half credit for the time he was here before.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I must remind the hon. member that my interpretation of the rule of relevancy is not the same as his. I believe he should come back to the motion. The amendment the hon. member was defending so well at the beginning is very far away from the section to which he is referring at this time. I think the amendment is very narrow in scope and reflects mainly on the good or bad character of the applicant, and not the time he is in Canada.


Mr. Stollery:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would entertain a question.


Benno Friesen: I did not hear the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member asked if the member who has the floor would accept a question.


Benno Friesen: After I have completed my speech I would entertain a question. Mr. Speaker, I will show you that really I have not been moving away from the amendment. It really is apropos of what I have been saying. I was relating to the fact that the minister wants to give half credit to people who have been here in this country before they are here officially as landed immigrants.
We have had experience in the last decade in respect of people who have been here unofficially or without permission before they received landed immigrant status. The minister himself alluded to such cases. In the last decade thousands of people have illegally come to Canada. I might refer to the American draft dodgers who in many cases may have been fine, upright, and upstanding young men. However, they were here illegally.
While these people were here they were granted landed immigrant status in one fell swoop and, presto, chango, they were legitimate residents. According to this bill in three years they would qualify to become citizens. I suggest that although there may have been some very fine prospective citizens among those thousands of people who came to Canada, at the same time there may have been many of them whose reasons for coming to Canada we do not know. Were those reasons spurious; were they legitimate? Were these genuine conscientious objectors, or were they afraid of war, or were they here because their parents did not want them to go to Viet Nam? They were here illegally, but it was not long after they were here illegally that they became legitimate landed immigrants.
According to the bill before us there is no process by which the judge can assess whether or not the person appearing before him should qualify. According to this bill, with the deletions of the minister, the judge does not have the prerogative to examine a particular applicant to deter-

April 13, 1976
Citizenship Act
mine whether or not he should be admitted to Canada as a citizen. This is the matter which I believe must be raised. For this reason I believe the amendment I have submitted to the House should be considered. I believe it is a sound amendment. We need to give the judges the kind of authority that will ensure that the people who come to Canada and become part of our family are the kind of people who are here because they are interested in our country.
Many things have changed in the last few years that have induced people to come to Canada. We know that for the first 100 years, or for the first 200 years of the life of our nation there were thousands of people who came to Canada because they saw it as a land of opportunity, because of all the advantages it would provide for them- the freedom that exists here, the opportunities there would be for their children and their grandchildren, and the economic possibilities. Then within the last 60 years events around the world changed the nature of immigration. The seven days in Russia in 1917 changed entire immigration patterns around the world because one of the fundamental tenets of the Russian revolution was that there was a need incumbent upon a good communist to export the revolution. One cannot call himself a good communist if he does not in fact militantly try to export the revolution.
I was a member of the committee which studied the green paper on immigration. Hearings were held across Canada. When we were in that great bastion of free enterprise, Edmonton, Alberta, we saw, as we did in other cities, demonstrations in front of the hotel where the meetings were held. These were demonstrations by members of the Maoist organization.


Mr. Nystrom:: Conservatives.


Benno Friesen: These were Maoists. My hon. friend would know them. Not only were we called verbally fascist pigs but were called the same thing by bulletins and newspapers which were passed out. One of the handbills passed out announced the next Maoist meeting for the purpose of reorganizing their troops in order to attack the fascist pigs who were coming to the immigration meetings. Mr. Speaker, do you know where this next meeting was to be organized? It was to be organized at the office of the Company of Young Canadians in Edmonton, an organization which this minister was supporting in his budget until a few months ago.
I suggest there are men and women who want to become citizens of Canada who are not necessarily men and women of good character who are here for our interests. They are not interested in the welfare of Canada. The committee on energy went to the northland. It visited Yellowknife. There the members of the committee met a couple of workers who were working very piously for the members of the Dene nation, supported by Mr. Mel Watkins and also supported by the Secretary of State. He was there supporting the Dene nation. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, we have not heard the last of that.
I am simply illustrating the fact that not everybody who comes to Canada necessarily is thinking of the welfare of this country when he does come here. We need to provide for the judge the kind of power that will give him the authority to make a decision concerning whether or not such a person should be admitted even though on paper, as

the minister suggests, he meets all the qualifications. There ought to be some way in which the judge would be able to decide right there and then whether this person will contribute to the welfare or to the harm of our nation.
I would recommend to the House the acceptance of this amendment because I think it is a good and wholesome step in order that we might ensure the preservation of a Canada that will be integrated, harmonious, and co-operative, and which will provide for us a reservoir of citizens who will look out for our welfare.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member informed me that he would entertain a question after his speech. He suggested that the time required for citizenship should have some relation to general elections. Over the past 20 years in Canada there have been general elections every two to two and a half years. How does he equate that with his four year term for general elections? I should like to hear his response because I think since 1957 elections have come every two to two and a half years.


Benno Friesen: Very simple, Mr. Speaker. The way this government is performing it will not have an election before it has to, and that will be in 1978 or 1979. By that time the three years will have elapsed, and many more people will have qualified.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to commend the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) for moving the amendment to Bill C-20. I intend to make some comments on the amendment. Throughout the debate on Bill C-20 one of the underlying factors which has affected the thinking of many hon. members is that Canada has been a receiving country of immigrants for the last number of years, with an average immigration of approximately 200,000 per year, so the question of how a person who wants to become a Canadian citizen can become one is a little critical. In the debates at second reading and during committee stage frequent comparisons were made with other countries, especially in view of the reduction of the residency requirement from five years down to something less, in this case, three years. Comparisons were made with countries which have very few immigrants. Those countries are not considered receiving countries.
During the debate at second reading and at committee stage a number of people wrote to me and, I imagine, to other hon. members as well, expressing the fear that we are moving toward a bureaucratic citizenship, or what some referred to as rubber stamp citizenship. When the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) appeared before the committee he gave a fair amount of attention to the fact that once certain conditions and requirements are fulfilled, citizenship is a right. I think this is also an area in which we disagree, not only with regard to immigration but also with regard to citizenship.
Many of us feel that immigration and citizenship are privileges which are bestowed upon individuals by this country. Granted, there are certain conditions whereby an immigrant can come into Canada. There are conditions whereby a landed immigrant can become a citizen. I accept that, but I prefer the system where judges grant citizen-
April 13, 1976

ship only after certain qualifications have been met, including the qualification of good character. I am fearful that we are moving toward an across the counter citizenship, or as some people have said, rubber stamp citizenship.
I should like to come directly to the amendment, which reads as follows:
(f) in the opinion of a citizenship judge, is not shown to be of other than good character.
In his presentation to the committee on February 24 the minister suggested that the qualification of good character was too hard to determine. In other words, there is not a set norm, and therefore, it being arbitrary, he felt that that consideration should be removed from the legislation. The argument was that it was too arbitrary, too subjective, and that the evaluation simply would not stand up in a court of law. I believe those were the three arguments the minister made to us at that time. He also mentioned that with regard to the question of good character an applicant could be refused citizenship, to use the example quoted by the minister, if he towed a person on water skis without another person keeping watch, which is a criminal offence. After that conviction the qualification of good character could be judged as not having been fulfilled and the application at least held in abeyance. On the other hand I think there is some merit in the suggestion that at the present time violations of the Criminal Code or the Narcotic Control Act should be retained.
I think this amendment also addresses itself to the problem of good character, which is just another extrapolation of the provisions as they presently stand in the bill. I gave this concept a fair amount of thought, and I also had difficulty on how to judge good character. I suppose we all have our own standards, but to my mind that condition should remain. A citizenship judge who has been given the responsibility to evaluate people, once the criteria in the act have been established, should be able to make the judgment.
There was very interesting testimony given in the committee, and one person who appeared before the committee expressed it rather well. He might not have had an exhaustive list of good character traits, but I will refer to the testimony which was given before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts on Thursday, March 4.
This testimony was given by, I believe, a constituent of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), who has been a very strong proponent of the bill and who does not like the arbitrary concept of good character. The witness gave a very good definition of how this condition would work. The person was Mr. J. Carraro, director of social services for the Labourers International Union of North America, local 183. Mr. Carraro was a strong supporter of the provision in Bill C-20 wherein the five year residency requirement is reduced to three years. I will be very frank about this. On the one hand I am quoting him, but I will freely admit that on the other hand he thought the requirement could be reduced to three years. At that time I said to him that if the conditions he placed before the committee were embodied in the legislation, I would much better understand the validity of the argument of the minister regarding the reduction from five years to three years.
Citizenship Act
However, that is another matter, and we can address ourselves to that at third reading.
Specifically on the question of good character Mr. Carraro said that his union held citizenship classes. They tried to teach people-I take it primarily of Italian background-their rights in Canada, but very strong emphasis was also placed on the responsibilities which we have in a parliamentary democracy such as Canada. I was very impressed with the testimony of Mr. Carraro and the sincerity with which he tried to answer the questions we put to him.
He had some specific recommendations to make on what he thought should be done in order to make the Citizenship Act and the citizenship procedure more equitable for those with landed immigrant status who wanted to become Canadians through the citizenship procedure.
Quoting from page 38:6 of the committee proceedings, Mr. Carraro said:
Finally, I would like to read some recommendations:
1. That in examining the suitability of an applicant for Canadian citizenship, the judge give priority to the personal and family habits of the applicant over the knowledge of the language and geography of this country.
I had the opportunity, as did a number of other members on the committee, to question Mr. Carraro on how he would define those conditions which he names, such as personal and family habits, as part of the good character clause which he wanted to see retained in the new citizenship act. In response to a question on how he would define good character, Mr. Carraro's list was not exhaustive, but here is what he said. I am quoting from the minutes of the same meeting at page 38:7: He said:
What I would look for is whether a man-let us speak of a man in this case-is a steady worker. I feel that is an objective measure for good character. He is contributing with his work to the betterment of the society. He is a good provider. I think that is good measurable character criterion for good character. Also, whether he is paying his mortgages on time. I think that is also a good character.
I thought that here was a person who had gone through the immigration procedure, had applied for citizenship, had appeared before a Canadian citizenship court and a Canadian citizenship judge, had become a citizen, and now was using his abilities and his association with immigrants to try to teach them the responsibilities and rights that each one of them would enjoy once he becomes a Canadian citizen. I think it was a practical illustration of what one person thought, having gone through the procedure relatively recently, spelled out good character.
It is a pretty practical approach, and while we might not want to incorporate into the act a provision which states that if a person pays his mortgage he should get his citizenship and if he does not pay his mortgage he should not, I do believe that here is a gentleman who was trying to establish for the committee that there are certain acceptable norms of behaviour which we expect from Canadian citizens. He was simply showing to the committee that surely a citizenship judge with certain responsibilities under the act can judge good character or, to make it easier perhaps, he can definitely see when the person before him is not of good character.

April 13, 1976
Citizenship Act
What will happen under the new act is that the judge will not now have the judgmental ability to assess what has been the accommodation of the applicant to Canadian life. I believe that this is especially valid in view of the fact that Bill C-20 will reduce the residency requirements from five years to three.
While some people will argue that this provision is arbitrary, I believe that this type of evaluation takes place every day. It takes place in our courts every day, and I think the minister should take a hard second look at whether or not the quality of good character should be reintroduced into Bill C-20.
I intend to speak again on third reading on other provisions of the bill, but I want to impress upon the minister and his colleagues that while he might argue that it is a subjective evaluation, it is one that has widespread support and one that takes place on a daily basis in the courts of this land. Our judges, having the responsibilities and qualifications that they do, are well capable of using a good character clause. Not only do they feel they are capable of using the parameters which the good character amendment would bring to this bill, not only are they capable of evaluating candidates, but they feel the good caracter clause should be reincorporated in the act to give them the judicial scope which they require at present.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to the amendment which attempts to retain good character as one of the criteria for qualifying for citizenship of this country. I suggest that it becomes essential to talk about some of the other criteria in order to plead for the retention of this one because so much has been lost and is being lost in the bill when citizenship is considered a right rather than a privilege if certain criteria are met. It becomes absolutely essential when we read two excerpts from the minister's statement in the committee when the bill was first discussed there. He said:
What makes this bill unique and a leader among nationality laws of the world? First, it treats absolutely everyone equally. An applicant is an applicant, whether the person be male or female, young or old, from Austria or Australia. This quality is rare in citizenship law.
Then he spoke about citizenship as a right, and eventually about the possibility of the time limit and the language requirement. He said that some citizens will of course have an advantage when they come to this country. He added:
It is to recognize the fact that some people are ready to try to meet the qualifications for citizenship more quickly than others. It is as simple as that. It only takes a moment's thought to realize that an applicant who already speaks one of Canada's two languages, has close family connections within Canada, is familiar with the Canadian form of government, has visited the country, and so on, has tremendous advantages over people who came from a country where they speak neither of the languages, which has a totally different form of government and so forth. There is certainly no guarantee that a person will receive citizenship after three years.
I submit that there is a contradiction in these two statements. It cannot be one and the other at the same time. I suggest that if this bill treats everyone equally it means that the criteria have to go. The criteria used to be five years of residence, security, knowledge, language, character, and something called "other" that I gather is judicial discretion.

Certainly security had some play around 1951, and I suspect the trial which was started off by Igor Gouzenko had something to do with security being a factor when this nation lost the innocence it had acquired through World War II and the hope that we would live in peace forever after. But I gather that the minister was very young in 1950 and has somehow retained his innocence and believes that now in 1976 we live in the same euphoria in which we lived in the years immediately following the war.
This is the time of detente, and security is gone-it was not used in 1974-75. Knowledge is gone as well. It did not matter in 1961, and in the last six years on record only one person a year has failed to acquire citizenship because of lack of knowledge of this country, and that was after five years of possibility for study. Language has been a factor but will cease to be.
There were attempts to amend the bill in order to eliminate the adequate knowledge of one or the other of the official languages. If you are going to treat everyone absolutely equally whether they come from Austria or from Australia, language will have to go and will not be able to stand as a criterion for rejecting a citizenship application. So we are left with character as a factor.
It was hoped that character would play some role in distinguishing between the applicant who failed and the one who succeeded, even though the time of residency was reduced. It seems to me that it is easier to disguise lack of good character for three years than for five years. In five years basic character becomes apparent. It is difficult to hide it for that length of time. But no, we are to reduce the waiting period to three years.
I am not at all convinced that granting citizenship at the end of a three-year period is good. I cannot understand why the government wishes to do this, after wishing to remove all traces of British subject status. Today we put in motion provisions which will eliminate all traces of the British subject from the elections act, as if it were a taint. The provision is to be removed. Some people who have lived in this country many years will not be able to vote at the next election because they will not have applied in time for Canadian citizenship. Is that how the governments means to demonstrate the value of Canadian citizenship? I submit that the value will go down.
In this busy world, time represents value. Actually it represents more than money. If you reduce the waiting period, you reduce the value of citizenship. I suppose it is too much to expect the government, which has reduced the value of our money to 40 per cent of what it was, to make the value of citizenship greater than 40 per cent of its original value.
I have been sent a great many letters in recent days. People write to me about the gun laws, that other infamous bill being put through by the government, and about the death penalty. A common thread runs through the letters, a desire to retain something worth while in this country, to protect this country. Some feel that this country is threatened. I wonder what people like this have been doing in the past year when the government has moved deliberately and cynically to reduce the value of Canadian citizenship.
April 13, 1976

Why will people not rise to the defence of something so worth while as citizenship? What has the Committee for an Independent Canada been doing? What has happened to the professors' report on Canadian studies in Canadian universities? What happened to that report this past year, when this bill was working its way through parliament? Thomas Symons said that there are few other countries in the world which have developed a post-secondary educational system that pays so little attention to the study of the country's own culture in the university curriculum.
We shall require that prospective citizens learn the language, attain a job, and reach some measure of self-sufficiency. We do not require that they shall spend enough time to learn something about our culture and about the essential factors of the country. Why bother stressing the value of citizenship if it can be so easily attained?
I know that in this last-ditch struggle we shall meet with no more success than our amendments met with in committee. We wanted to amend the provisions governing the time factor. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said, "Move an amendment." I moved an amendment in committee, but it received, I am afraid, short shrift from the government that was bent on building a monument to the minister rather than on the retention of the value of citizenship.
In closing, I wonder what is the attitude of those who have sought a Canadian identity and who endeavour to inculcate the Canadian identity in our universities and in the economic systems of this land. I say, to paraphrase the old song:
Yet Hurtigs and ye Symons,
Oh, where hae ye been?
When they gave away the citizenship for Half of what it's been.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief and non-provocative. I hope sincerely that we can read this bill the third time tomorrow, and I shall not do anything which may upset that hope.
I admit that at the committee stage there were genuine differences of opinion between myself and certain hon. members opposite who served on the committee, on the question of good character. One can say that we will agree to disagree. We both stand for principles we are trying to defend.
Hon. members opposite know my concern about good character and know I am not trying to promote bad character. They know, as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) was good enough to say, that I consider a good character provision as too subjective. It is not measurable in law. I feel that in a piece of legislation like this we should try to avoid subjective provisions of that kind which are, as has been said, interpreted by individuals according to their own views, culture, background, and traditions.
We are not avoiding the issue. We propose to replace the good character provision with a provision which can be measurable in law, namely, one to do with indictable offences. This provision is found in clause 20, which reads in part:
Citizenship Act
Notwithstanding anything in this act, a person shall not be granted citizenship under section 5 or subsection 10(1) or administered the oath of citizenship (a) while he is
(i)	under a probation order,
(ii)	a paroled inmate, or
(iii)	confined in or an inmate of any penitentiary, gaol, reformatory
or prison,
pursuant to any enactment in force in Canada;
And now comes the especially pertinent part, the provision which takes the place of the good character provision:
(b) while he is charged with, on trial for, subject to or a party to an appeal relating to an offence under subsection 28(1) or (2) of an indictable offence under any Act of Parliament.. .
I do not think we can reconcile our differences. It is my contention that the government's approach is measurable in law. I am not proposing anything inconsistent with the spirit of the law. I think this provision makes more sense than retaining the notion of good character. I made the point several times in committee. I have not been able to persuade hon. members opposite; nor have they been able to persuade me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. Member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Jarvis) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now consider motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes).


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie) moved: motion No. 2:
-That Bill C-20, An Act respecting citizenship, be amended in Clause 18 by deleting sub-clauses (2), (3) and (4) and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The Minister shall appoint a tribunal consisting of a Superior Court Judge or Judges who may review any declaration made by the Governor in Council pursuant to sub-section (1) hereof.
(3)	Upon an application for such a review the Minister shall advise the applicant of the particulars of the grounds upon which the Governor in Council has declared that to grant citizenship or issue a certificate of renunciation would be prejudicial to the security of Canada or contrary to public order in Canada, without disclosing the names of witnesses or sources of this information.
(4)	The tribunal shall hold a hearing at which the applicant and the Minister shall be entitled to be present or to be represented by Counsel.
(5)	The tribunal shall make recommendations to the Minister as to whether the declaration by the Governor in Council should be imple-

April 13, 1976
Citizenship Act
mented or withdrawn as the case may be and shall state its reasons
therefor in writing to the applicant and the Minister.
(6)	A declaration made under sub-section (1) ceases to have effect
two years after the day on which it was made.".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to present this amendment at the report stage of this bill because I think the committee, having spent a good part of two sessions dealing with it, recognizes the importance of the problem that relates to the amendment I have moved.
Basically the situation is that in the bill we have before us there is a provision in clause 18 whereby the governor in council, in practice the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), can deny an applicant Canadian citizenship on the grounds that to grant the application would be prejudicial to the security of Canada or contrary to public order in Canada.
That is an important clause in the bill. I do not argue with it being there. It is important that the minister have that discretionary power to deny citizenship because of security reasons, as so stated. What I take exception to is that there is no provision in this bill, nor has there been in the past, that when a minister denies an applicant citizenship for security reasons that those reasons have to be explained to the applicant. Nor does the applicant have an opportunity to appeal those reasons or present to the minister contrary evidence and argument, in other words to have his day in court.
As it stands, the clause seems to be a denial of natural justice. It is a denial to the applicant to be given clearly the reasons for rejecting his citizenship and the opportunity to put forth counter-argument. That is why I have moved the amendment that is before us.
The amendment does not remove the minister's discretionary power to turn down a citizenship applicant for security reasons. Nor does it force the minister to disclose the sources from which he has received the information that led him to conclude the applicant would be a security risk. What the amendment would do is set up an appeal tribunal consisting of superior court judges. It would allow the applicant to see the reasons why he is being denied citizenship without disclosing the sources.
This would provide an applicant with a change to dispute those reasons and present evidence that may contradict some of the arguments the minister has received from his sources. I submit that the confidentiality of the sources of the minister would be maintained. That is important. If security agencies want to continue to receive information from sources, obviously the confidentiality of those must be protected.
I have therefore designed an amendment which I think is reasonable and moderate. It does not demand that the cases be held in open court under normal legal practices. It at least allows the applicant some opportunity for a hearing, although it is a very limited hearing. As it is now without this amendment, a person is simply told he has been denied citizenship for security reasons. They are not enumerated or elaborated. Nor does he have a chance to challenge that decision.
I submit that the amendment I have moved falls in line with general government policy or at least with some of the recommendations made in 1969 by the Royal Commis-

sion on Security which recognized the very problem I have described, namely, that there is a denial of natural justice without this right of appeal. That royal commission made what I thought was a very sensible recommendation. I quote from page 301 of the abridged report:
We recommend that the grant of citizenship should normally be refused on security grounds only if actual illegalities or criminal acts have been committed and proved in court, and not merely for membership in subversive associations or even the communist party. However, we recommend that ministerial discretion should be retained to deal with certain cases in which it may remain appropriate to withhold citizenship for particularly significant security reasons. All persons whose applications are rejected on security grounds should have access to the Security Review Board.
Because the royal commission stated that no group in Canada has been designated as subversive, if someone is going to be denied citizenship on that ground he should have the right of appeal. The royal commission recommended that a security review board be set up. Seven years have passed since that recommendation was put forward. We still have many applicants for Canadian citizenship being turned down for security reasons without any opportunity to appeal that decision. My amendment falls in line with the conclusions of a royal commission.
I do not accept the arguments that we heard in committee from the minister's officials. They stated that the problem is so difficult that the government cannot come up with some kind of security review board or appeal tribunal at this time. They further said it was beyond their mental capacity to design such a board that would guarantee a right of appeal and at the same time protect the minister's discretionary power and confidentiality of sources. If we do not make a move at this time to set up some kind of appeal procedure, how much longer must we wait?
The royal commission made some very important conclusions in 1969 and we should be acting on them. If that royal commission is not enough to convince hon. members of the importance of having this kind of review procedure, I draw their attention to a case that was brought before the Federal Court of Canada in 1973 by an applicant who had been turned down for security reasons. He was not given any argument or any chance to appeal. He took the then Secretary of State to court. I wish to read the decision of the Federal Court judges because I think their conclusions are very relevant and appropriate to my amendment.
The case was T. Lazarov v. Secretary of State of Canada. I read from the decision of Mr. Justice Thurlow of that case in 1973. He stated:
Whenever the reason for contemplating refusal of an application is one that is peculiar to the particular applicant the nature of citizenship and its importance to the individual are such that the applicant ought at least to have an opportunity of some kind and at some stage of the proceedings to dispute its existence.
Further, Mr. Justice Thurlow, with two other justices concurring, ruled that:
The status of citizenship carries with it rights and advantages and to refuse the application of a person to whom it would otherwise be granted on the basis of matters of which he is not apprised and which he is given no opportunity to dispute is shocking to one's sense of justice even though he may lawfully apply again after a comparatively short time. It suggests that the applicant is not being fairly dealt with and fairness demands that he at least be afforded an opportunity to state his position .. In my opinion, therefore, the rule audi alteram
April 13, 1976

partem applies whenever the minister proposes to excercise his discretion to refuse an application on the basis of facts pertaining to the particular applicant or his application and where he has not already had an opportunity in the course of the proceedings before the Citizenship Court he must be afforded a fair opportunity in one way or another of stating his position with respect to any matters which in the absence of refutation or explanation would lead to the rejection of his application. This is not to say a confidential report or its contents need be disclosed to him but the pertinent allegations which if undenied or unresolved would lead to rejection of his application must, as I see it, be made known to him to an extent sufficient to enable him to respond to them and he must have a fair opportunity to dispute or explain them.
That was the considered opinion of a Federal Court justice in a case which is most pertinent to my amendment. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a royal commission arguing the need for an appeal procedure, and we find a Federal Court justice also stating that an appeal procedure is necessary. I understand that the Department of the Secretary of State is appealing that Federal Court decision before the Supreme Court and that the matter is still unresolved. Nevertheless I feel strongly that there ought to be some kind of appeal procedure provided.
I have heard departmental officials argue that though a person might be denied citizenship for security reasons he can reapply after two years. That is true, but neither the officials nor the police agencies are obliged to prepare a new report or submit new evidence which might be on the side of the applicant. All they have to do is resubmit the original files, and the minister denies the application once again. This process could go on every two years. For his part, the applicant has no opportunity to get hold of the reasons for the denial of his application and produce counter arguments. So the two-year provision is no solution; it only puts the applicant back to square one every two years.
We heard an official in the security branch say he recognized the merit of the appeal procedure but he feared that if any such procedure were introduced the government's sources of information might dry up. I presume he was referring to the RCMP or to police agencies or to organizations such as the FBI or the CIA. But my amendment would take care of such a situation by providing for a hearing in confidence-the reasons need only be stated to the applicant in a general way, and the sources of the information need not be disclosed. Thus there should be no fear on the part of the government that its sources of information would dry up.
I might say, as an aside, that I am rather skeptical and, indeed, highly critical of the government's sources of information if they include the CIA, which has become infamous for its illegal activities, as we saw during the Watergate affair, and for carrying out all kinds of spying for a former president. We should remember that in the United States a law has been passed requiring the FBI and the CIA to present any dossier concerning a person when that person requests it. And these agencies have not gone to ruin because such a basic right has been granted with the object of protecting civil liberty.
I realize the government is preoccupied about the secrecy of information, but in an area such as this which so closely affects natural justice I believe it ought to recognize that my amendment does not, in fact, jeopardize its sources of information. It is of great importance that an applicant should have an opportunity of appearing before a tribunal to hear the evidence and comment upon it.
Citizenship Act
There is historical precedent in Canada for such an amendment as I propose. During the second world war and thereafter, in the course of what I consider to be a sad chapter in Canadian history, when citizens of Japanese origin and other so-called aliens were interned, the government set up an appeal procedure whereby anyone who was to be interned had a right to appeal along the lines I have suggested here. Government sources of information were protected, but at least the person concerned had a right to his day in court, as it were.
When we look at the history of the denial of citizenship on security grounds we cannot but be concerned over what has been happening in recent times. The government has never been obliged to define precisely what is meant by "protecting the security of Canada" or "prejudicial to public order". There are phrases which can be interpreted by bureaucrats and by the government as they go along.
One has only to look at the pattern of denial of citizenship for security reasons to see how irregular the definition of these phrases has been-how it fluctuates from time to time as people interpret the situation according to the vogue of the period. When we look at the statistics provided for us we find that since 1949 2,173 applicants have been denied Canadian citizenship for security reasons. This figure represents 39.9 per cent of the total number of rejections year by year. It is a significant proportion. But when we look at the pattern of the number of rejections in each year something very interesting emerges.
In 1949, 28 people were denied citizenship for security reasons. By 1951 the number had jumped to 170 and remained at about that level, between 150 and 190, from 1951 to 1959. Then it began to drop off, falling to 70 in 1963, and 11 in 1973. Hon. members will notice that the high watermark of rejection occurred during the McCarthy red scare era in the United States which spilled over into Canada as well. There followed a kind of hysteria when people looked for security risks behind every door and in every closet. This shows how unregulated and widely interpreted this concept of a security risk can be.
When we questioned the minister's officials in committee, my confidence that the interpretation would be fair was not in any way strengthened. For example, when I asked them how they interpret "prejudicial to the security of Canada" or "contrary to public order in Canada", Mr. Nichols, as reported at page 44:7 of the minutes for Tuesday, March 23, had this to say:
On the matter of how we will interpret the words of the bill, again I am at a great disadvantage. The words of the bill, as I have said, are simply a phraseology to describe what is now done. The present act does not talk about security. It evolved. Canada has been in the security business regarding the naturalization of aliens since about 1918. Various methods have been used through the years. Most of them just grew.
I suppose they just grew like Topsy, Mr. Speaker. It is something that has evolved without any kind of definition or regulation. I worry when bureacrats make definitions according to their whims and fancies as the days go by. If we are going to have this kind of latitude in interpretation, we must have some appeal procedure to guarantee basic human rights.

April 13, 1976
Citizenship Act
I am not speaking abstractly, Mr. Speaker. I have pointed to figures showing people who have been denied Canadian citizenship for these reasons. I have quoted a court case, and there have been other cases as well. The most current one concerns an individual called Mr. Offley who came to Canada a few years ago. He applied for citizenship which was approved by a citizenship judge, but he was turned down by the minister for security reasons. Because he renounced his U.S. citizenship and cannot get Canadian citizenship, he now finds he is without a country, unable to move out of Canada.
To show in human terms what happens when people are caught up in the regulations, I should like to quote a letter Mr. Offley wrote to the Secretary of State on April 9. In part he said:
Your decision to refuse my application means that I am, and will stay, a permanent domiciled resident in Canada. I am stateless, and thus immune from deportation, as no country will accept me either as a visitor or as an immigrant.
However, if my rejection has no substantial consequences for you, it has quite immense ones for me. It means that my legal status will remain one of living in limbo, with no possibility of gaining citizenship, without even the alternative of leaving. I have been conferred this status without a trial, without access to the allegations on which the decision was taken, without a right to confront my accusers, and without right of appeal. It is a decision that has been taken without reference to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Security and without regard to the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.
I think that points out in a quiet, dramatic way how this law affects individuals. There may be good reasons for turning down applicants on security grounds; I do not dispute that. Nor do I dispute the minister's right to do so. But surely in this country, which prides itself on its democracy and long tradition of basic human rights, we should at least allow the accused, so to speak, to have his day in court, although in this case it certainly is a rather restricted one because of the circumstances.
We discussed this very thoroughly in committee, and it was my feeling that because members were generally concerned with trying to wrestle with the problem, that they felt deeply about it. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) was very sympathetic and argued that we must move in this direction.
I do not have much hope that government members will support my amendment; it will probably go down to defeat. Nevertheless I wanted to put on record something that concerns me as a Canadian and believer in liberty and justice. I hope my arguments, if they do not move the government to bring in a security review board or appeal procedure at this stage, will give the government added impetus to take action and bring in such a review procedure in the near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) not going to reply to this excellent appeal that the hon. member has made to him?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I was going to resist the temptation to reply, having one eye on the clock, but I will be very brief. As the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) has put it,

this is a subject that was given an awful lot of thought and consideration in committee. He has raised a number of extremely important questions. The formula that we have put forward in Bill C-20 I think he will agree is an advance over what we had before. I do not believe we have found the ultimate answer to the concern that he raised tonight, but I think it is important to recognize that we have made three changes that are an improvement over the present situation.
First of all, we have stated the nature of the discretionary power involved in rather plain language, so that applicants are not refused without reason being given. Secondly, the discretionary act is moved to a higher authority and the decision will be collegial. In other words, it will no longer be a simple act of discretion on the part of the minister but will also involve the governor in council. Thirdly, for the first time we will make available to a refused applicant the reasons for his refusal. He will be told in so many words that he has been refused citizenship for security reasons, and he will be given this information in confidence.
I think that is an improvement over the present situation. I do not think I would argue, though, with a great deal of personal conviction that it answers all the questions that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie raised tonight. I think those will be subject to further reviews down the line.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Symes) negatived.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Motion No. 3: That Bill C-20, An Act respecting citizenship, be amended in Clause 33 by deleting sub-clause 6(e).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be much more brief in my explanation of this amendment. It deals with the amendment proposed by the minister regarding property and how it relates to ownership and citizenship.
Briefly the situation up to now has been that under the constitution the provinces have control over property. What has happened in many provinces, certainly in my
April 13, 1976

povince of Ontario and in Prince Edward Island, has been that foreign ownership of land has become a great problem. Recreation land was bought up by non-Canadians and a lot of land speculation took place. The only way a province could put a stop or a slowdown to this process of foreign ownership and the purchase of land was to pass regulations denying ownership on the basis of non-residency. That is to say, if you wanted to buy land in Prince Edward Island you had to be a resident of Prince Edward Island. This was felt to be rather restrictive. By denying ownership to anyone not a resident, not only do you deny the right of foreign nationals to buy land, you prevent other Canadians from buying land in that province.
What the bill before us does is widen the scope of action on the part of a province. It will allow a province to deny ownership of land on the basis of residency, as has been the case in the past, and also on the basis of citizenship. That it to say, if a province designs the legislation, a non-Canadian would be prohibited from owning certain types of land. Of course I agree with that. What I object to is one clause in the amendment presented by the minister which states that if the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which is a federal agency, decides that an ownership acquisition by a foreign company is in order, then that is to overrule any provincial law which may deny ownership on the basis of non-Canadian citizenship.
I moved an amendment to deal with the clause relating to the Foreign Investment Review Agency for a number of reasons. First of all, it is a fact that many of the provinces object to the clause itself on the basic ground that it is an intrusion of federal jurisdiction into what is clearly defined by the constitution as a provincial right, namely, the right of property. It also means that the rules can be changed at any time because the Foreign Investment Review Act can be amended at any time by the federal government without consultation with the provinces. Some of the provinces, therefore, are in dispute over this clause. Because we did not hear from the witnesses for the provinces at the committee it would be more appropriate to delete this clause until the federal government can talk to the provinces in an attempt to hammer out something agreeable to the majority.
In addition, I think the foreign investment review clause negates the general thrust of the amendment which is intended to broaden the scope under which provinces can act. It may well be that a province might want to deny ownership to a foreign company buying up real estate for land speculation purposes, either on the outskirts of an urban centre or in the urban centre itself, or deny the right of a foreign land corporation to buy up agricultural land, as has been going on in many of the provinces.
We could conceivably have such a foreign company being given the right by the Foreign Investment Review Agency to buy up Canadian companies and the land on which they reside or which they control. This would be contrary to the intent of the amendment, to give the provinces some power to restrict ownership on grounds other than just residency. That is to say, they could restrict ownership on the basis of not being a Canadian citizen.
It is my feeling that it would be best at this time that the clause be deleted for the reasons outlined. I do not wish to go into more detail as we discussed it in committee, but
Citizenship Act
again I felt it was important to put this on the record and I commend my amendment to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I declare the motion lost on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Symes) negatived.


James Hugh Faulkner: that Bill C-20, respecting citizenship, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, by leave now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: This can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

April 13, 1976
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the last should always be first, but I did not know that I would really be first that quickly. I count on you and other people for small mercies. Now to get down to business.
My business in being here tonight is to deal with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) in connection with what I think is a great travesty as it affects the people of Halifax, the people of Saint John, the people of Montreal, the millers in all parts of eastern Canada, and the western grain growers, more particularly those of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I hope I have covered the ground adequately for that with which I intend to deal. This is probably my sixth appearance on the late show in the last three or four weeks in connection with this particular subject.
What concerns me is that the Minister of Transport, who should be the custodian and guardian of Section 272 of the Railway Act, is going to repeal this by virtue of Clause 15 of the bill which is item no. 87 on the current hit parade; that is, the restraint program before us in parliament. That is the reason why I appear here tonight, as I have on a number of occasions, to appeal to the Minister of Transport, my dear friend; the President of the Treasury Board, a dear friend of mine also; the Minister of Agriculture, also a dear friend; and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, also a dear friend. I hope I have proven in previous debate that what they propose will cause a loss to the Canadian economy of at least $100 million a year. Whether we like that or not I think that is an important figure.
I believe I have proven that this has been an ill-contrived program. It is something that not only I will fight but which also will be fought by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax-East (Mr. Forrestall). The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers) also will be dragged into this fight before it is over. There will be 22 or 25 members from the city of Montreal who will be dragged into it, as well as members from the western grain growing areas of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. In other words, it will be one hell of a good fight in this House of Commons. I can say without even taking a second breath that that is exactly what will happen. Why will this come about?
Before asking the spokesman for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to reply I will venture to suggest the reason this will come about is simply that when the new Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Humboldt,

took his place he was told that he would have to achieve a certain amount of savings. He went back to his department, which admittedly has been in a mess not only since the days of the minister who preceded him but since the days of a couple of ministers back.
He asked what he could do in order to effect savings in his department. He was told that the flour-grain subsidy could be dealt with because no one would protest it. He was told that it might affect Halifax, Saint John or Montreal, but that the people involved are all very supine and that no one would be smart enough to spot it. The darned trouble was that quite a few people did spot it very quickly. Many of them were very quick to raise a resentful voice. I was one who raised the matter, and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was another. Between the two of us we batted this thing back and forth for the last couple of weeks. I will tell you, Sir, that I think the new Minister of Transport now realizes this. This does not involve merely the two of us. There are about 20 and probably more members of parliament who are prepared to start raising a very large fuss about what he proposes to do.
This has been scouted thoroughly in the past. I do not wish to go into the fact and figures, but I am prepared to debate the facts and figures in respect of this matter with anyone. The fact is that the Port of Halifax will not be dealt with in the way suggested, nor will the port of Saint John. I may stand as a rather small figure compared to the large number of figures who have not yet spoken in respect of the port of Montreal. Before this is over not only will the members from Montreal be involved is this but also the members from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, the two grain growing provinces.
When we return after Easter there will be a large number of people fighting for what I am fighting for tonight, and I will not feel too much alone at that time. I will be able to say that at least I was a pioneer. What I am fighting for, Mr. Speaker, is that we do not throw out an old policy until we can come in with something new that is better. Until the Minister of Transport does that, I will be fighting for an old policy.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague mentioned that he did not want to be last, he certainly raised a problem that was the subject of many discussions. I personally raised that problem many times in the Department of Transport. When he mentioned the Department of Transport, the Treasury Board and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as having something to do with this problem, one sees how complex the problem raised by the hon. member is.
The government came under numerous protests for repealing section 272 of the Railway Act. Of course, the decision to eliminate the "At and East" subsidy was made to reduce government expenditures. It may be easy to blame the government for its excessive expenditures-and we hear about it virtually every day during the question period in the House-but it is even a lot more difficult to suggest means of reducing those expenditures without clashes. All budget cuts were made after consultation with the bodies involved and after considering regional submis-
April 13, 1976

sions and needs within an overall policy dealing with socio-economic aspects, or still within an economic policy for the whole of all Canadians.

With respect to the ports of Saint John and Halifax, the Minister of Transport has indicated that the removal of the subsidy may encourage beneficial developments, such as the movement of grain by unit train to these ports.
Flour exports from most traditional exporting countries, including Canada, Australia, and the United States, have been declining for a number of years. This is due to several factors, including a trend toward national self-sufficiency in milling capacity throughout the world. Nonetheless, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce advised the hon. member, he intends to have discussions with the Minister of Transport and his officials on this subject.
I congratulate the hon. member who raised this question, and I assure him that it is very important. I hope the decision will reflect the needs of all Canadians.


FINANCE-MONITORING OF INCOME OF INSURANCE AGENTS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start on a pleasant note by congratulating the parliamentary secretary for doing double duty this evening and representing the forces of the government in such an adequate and astute way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The forces of evil.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I didn't say that.
The question I raised several weeks ago was with regard to the increasing evidence that incomes for insurance agents in British Columbia have gone up dramatically as a result of the increase in auto insurance rates in that province. It was not raised out of any petulance or envy of those incomes. It was raised because any anti-inflation program worth the name must develop some kind of consensus within the population, and differences in raises within that population must be seen to be fair for any anti-inflation program to work.
The evidence is that the average rate for auto insurance in British Columbia has doubled, and the charges insurance agents make for collecting those premiums have remained approximately the same. They have reduced their rate from 7 per cent to 5 per cent on the basis of statutory coverage and it has remained 10 per cent on the optional coverage. The collision coverage, which is now optional, goes into that optional area. Let me give you an example.
The commission that an agent would get on a 1973 Toyota between last year and this year has increased by 83 per cent, given the same risk. With the same work force, the same number of people, the same staff, that increase is not justifiable under any kind of meaningful anti-inflation program. As a result of that I decided I would drop a note to the Anti-Inflation Board to see what steps the chairman of that board would be able to take with regard to what
Adjournment Debate
appears to be an excessive increase in the incomes of one section of the community. I should like to quote from a letter from Jean-Luc Pepin, dated March 30, and directed to me in response to my letter. He writes:
Increased earnings derived from direct commission in a guideline year are not subject to legal restraint, providing the formula by which the income is determined does not change from the base to the guideline year.
Later he goes on to state:
The increase in remuneration would be attributed to an increase in productivity.
It is that quote from the letter in which the chairman suggests that somehow the increase in the incomes of insurance agents in British Columbia has something to do with productivity which makes me think that the government is living in an Alice in Wonderland world, and the legislation it has proposed in terms of controlling inflation does nothing meaningful whatsoever with regard to the incomes of such people.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to put himself in the shoes of a lumber worker in my constituency who finds, first, that his wages are frozen; second, that his insurance rates have been tripled; third, that the export levy has been removed on the lumber that his company sells abroad, which means that it can make just as much profit as it likes because it is not under the anti-inflation guidelines; fourth, when he buys his insurance he finds his insurance agent no longer flies to Hawaii every year, he can now go around the world if he likes. That kind of program does not give any hope of a consensus on antiinflation measures. From time to time people in our party are critized as being carping critics, but I am trying to be positive on this.
I hope the parliamentary secretary in responding to this question will deal with what the legislation can do to control this excess of income and will tell us what specific proposals his government is now prepared to make to bring the incomes of professional people and people at that level under some control. I suggest it has to be in the form of income taxation. This should be done so that the people who work with their hands in the mills, who have their wages frozen, and people who are on low incomes can have some confidence that the program is not being carried on their backs, which certainly evidence concerning incomes of insurance agents in British Columbia would seem to support.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the hon. member for his kind remarks and I hope he will be satisfied with the reply I intend to give him.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) has asked if the income of agents selling insurance on behalf of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) is being monitored under the guidelines of the anti-inflation program. I would note, first of all, that the province of British Columbia and the federal government are in the process of negotiating an agreement under the anti-inflation program. Until such an agreement is signed, none of the provincial public sector, including any of its

April 13, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Crown corporations, is covered under the anti-inflation program.
Second, the minister indicated quite clearly to the provinces on February 10, 1976, in reply to a question on whether the ICBC would be covered by a Canada-B.C. agreement on the anti-inflation program, that we would be quite prepared to discuss the inclusion of provincial agencies under such an agreement. The procedure that has been followed with provinces that have signed an agreement has been to annex to any memorandum of agreement the specific schedule listing such government bodies that are to be covered. The final decision on which bodies will be covered by the government remains with the provinces.
In this regard I wish to bring to your attention Premier Bennett's statement of February 27, 1976, in which he indicated his government's intention to have the national anti-inflation guidelines apply to pricing and compensation decisions in the British Columbia public sector.
With respect to the specific question on monitoring of income of agents of ICBC, it is the minister's understanding that such agents are not salaried employees. They operate under a contractual agreement with ICBC, and are paid on a commission basis. Furthermore, the minister is given to understand that commission rates vary by type of insurance sold. An agent's remuneration would depend, as well, on the size and number of contracts he negotiates.
If such a case were to be brought to the attention of the Anti-Inflation Board, it is the minister's impression that they would be guided by their compensation regulations which provide for review of commission rate structures for those employers subject to monitoring under the program. I would note, however, that the anti-inflation guidelines are not intended to penalize those individuals whose productivity increases. In this case, any increased income of agents which is attributable to an increase in the size and number of contracts they negotiate would be within the guidelines under the anti-inflation program.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.18 p.m.

Wednesday, April 14, 1976