1955-05-06

Mr. Speaker:: May I, with unanimous consent, tell the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) how pleased we are to see him back from his trip looking so well.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. Yesterday in the house, when the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) was speaking, he indicated that I took a certain action in this house on a previous occasion. I did no such thing. Since he has accused me of that action, I wish now to state my part of that case, if I have your permission.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know exactly to what the hon. gentleman is referring at this moment, but I want to make sure that we are not going to confuse the situation which perhaps, if correction is necessary, should be corrected only when the debate is resumed. If I recall what took place last night, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek was referring to the way a member voted on a certain occasion. If the hon. member wishes at this time to correct the interpretation of that vote by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, it seems to me that the time at which to do it would be when the debate is resumed. I do not think a member, on a question of privilege, once a debate has been adjourned, could try to correct an interpretation of either words pronounced or views expressed or the manner in which a vote has been given in a debate that has been adjourned.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, of course I must abide by your decision, and I have no desire whatever to try to override the rules of this house, but it is not a case
of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek misinterpreting anything. It is a case of his making a deliberate false statement, and he knew it to be false. If you suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I should refrain from speaking on this question now and wait until the debate comes up, I shall be glad to do that. I shall have to await your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said, if the hon. member wishes to refer to what took place last night in the manner I have indicated, it is a matter of opinion as to whether the hon. member knew what he said to be false and whether he spoke some falsehood deliberately or not. As the hon. member knows, until the matter has been clarified, the hon. member who has made a statement, certainly in good faith, should not be accused of having spoken any falsehood until the contrary has been proven.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall clarify it when the debate is resumed.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the best procedure to follow.


Mr. Sluder:: I ask for special consideration. I was just reading the record. I was not making any charges on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



NATIONAL CAPITAL PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: On Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) asked me if it was still the intention of the government to set up a committee to look into the affairs of the federal district commission.
The speech from the throne indicated that a joint committee of both houses would be proposed to examine, in the light of the Municipal Grants Act and possible amendments thereto, the financial and other relationships of the government and the federal district commission with the city of Ottawa and neighbouring municipalities.
It is now the feeling of the government that there are so many committees in operation at this time considering matters of great importance that it would not be possible at this stage of the session to have a committee
3516	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry on the scale originally contemplated; that the municipal grants bill now before the house might therefore be referred to the banking and commerce committee as soon as second reading has been completed; and that there might be an opportunity before the close of the session to establish the joint committee with a view to laying the foundation for a wider examination of the work of the federal district commission at the next session.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General or to the Acting Postmaster General. Has an order been passed having the effect of penalizing post office employees who are sometimes late for work by taking time off their annual holidays? If so, who thought up the order, and will it be cancelled?


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the publicity that has been given to the recent order, I wonder if I might not give a brief but comprehensive reply to the hon. member.
A circular was issued. The purpose of the circular was to ensure that employees are treated uniformly in the various offices throughout the service. Where employees are late owing to unavoidable circumstances, such as breakdown in transportation, heavy snowstorms and items of that kind, every reasonable cognizance is taken of these features.
In the postal service punctuality is exceedingly important. If employees are not on duty on time, mails are delayed and deliveries are retarded. Punctuality becomes all the more important with the advent of the 40-hour week. In many industrial concerns if the employees are not on time, the gates are closed and they are not allowed to work for a certain period of the day.
We felt that the employees should know the penalties they are likely to suffer so that they can adjust their arrangements accordingly, rather than to have imposed a penalty without any previous notice. Only a very small minority of our people are affected, as the majority have an exceptionally good punctuality record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. If representatives of the postal employees make representations against this


order, will those representations be considered by the government?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should answer that question. The answer is: "of course".



PRODUCTION AND DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION- 1954 AND 1955

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Proudfoot (Poniiac-Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What was the production and domestic disappearance of butter in Canada for the calendar year 1954, and for the year 1955 to date?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The production of butter in Canada for the calendar year 1954 was 312,600,000 pounds and the domestic disappearance or consumption was 292,600,000 pounds.
For the first three months in 1955 the production was 34,300,000 pounds, and the domestic disappearance or consumption was
66,500,000	pounds.
A comparison of the first quarter of 1954 with that of 1955 indicates that while production decreased by 3 per cent, consumption increased by 3 per cent.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question. Has he received any message or request from the province of Saskatchewan with regard to the disastrous flooding in that province? Are any arrangements being made to confer on the matter, to send assistance or anything of that sort?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the best answer I can give to the hon. gentleman is to say that last night I received from the premier of Saskatchewan a telegram which reads as follows:
Flooding of communities and farm lands on province wide scale has created disaster of major proportions. Urge your government to declare national emergency and give assistance on same basis as made available to other parts of Canada where similar disasters have occurred. Prepared to send ministers of provincial government to

confer with you and your colleagues if you so desire. Situation urgent and immediate assistance would be appreciated.
I telegraphed the hon. gentleman this morning in the following terms:
Your telegram received late last night and I wish to assure you everyone sympathizes with all those affected by recent storms and flooding in your province. We have no information that would indicate shortages of immediately necessary relief supplies nor nature and extent of actual destruction.
In cases where federal aid has been extended the provincial authorities had taken the initiative in securing factual information. I suggest that much more such information is required before any discussion with your colleagues could be really helpful. Your government will no doubt be securing such information and may wish to supply it to us and we will give it the same consideration as was given to all previous cases.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister consider using the federal forces in Saskatchewan, officials in P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A., who know every part of Saskatchewan, also to look into this matter and give it immediate attention?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: When the factual information collected by the provincial authorities has been brought to our attention we will take the best possible measures of checking it in order to satisfy ourselves that it represents the facts with regard to what has occurred.



INQUIRY AS TO REPRESENTATIONS FROM GOVERNMENT OF MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: May I ask a
supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister received any representations of a similar nature from the government of Manitoba.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Not in connection with what has happened within these recent days.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
59. Departmental administration, $493,651.
Mr. Decore:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to the attention of the minister a matter within his department which I feel is far from being conducive to the promotion of good citizenship and the spirit of Canadian-ism and which to a certain section of our Canadian population is even insulting, to say the least.
May I start off first by saying that the population of our country is made up of
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration people of different racial origins who either themselves came from different lands or whose parents or ancestors did so. They have different backgrounds, but these people have brought with them their skills and their cultures and each is making a contribution to the building of our nation and the development of our distinctive Canadian national culture. I say that the strength of Canada lies in the diversity of its population. Regardless of what may be our occupation, what church we attend or whence came our parents, one thing we have in common with our neighbours is Canadian citizenship. At the same time we are members of the British commonwealth of nations which is the greatest organization that the world has ever seen. Certainly it is the policy of the government, and I am sure it is the thinking of every hon. member and of the Canadian people generally, that Canadians regardless of their racial origin should be proud of their origin whether it be Scottish, Polish, Anglo-Saxon, Ukrainian, French, Irish, or any other, proud of the contribution that they are making to this country and proud of the fact that these things have brought us together to make us better citizens and Canada a better place in which to live.
Having said that, I should like to draw the minister's attention to applications for Canadian citizenship that have been made by prospective Canadian citizens of Ukrainian origin. In making such applications these people have stated that they were born in the Ukraine. I should like to read the part of the reply of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration which is pertinent to the point I wish to make. These people have been told:
I regret to inform you that Ukraine is not the name of a country. It refers only to a province or a territory. As the name Ukraine does not refer to the name of a country, it would not be correct to enter Ukraine on your application form as your country of birth.
It seems to me that this statement, contained in a document coming from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, is not only insulting to these applicants but also humiliating. It is not only insulting and humiliating to them as applicants, but I think that kind of statement is insulting to any person of that origin regardless of whether he lives in Canada or any other part of the world, and there are some 50 million of them throughout the world. When someone makes a statement to the effect that "Ukraine" is not the name of a country, such a statement is incompatible with history and certainly incompatible with present-day facts.
I am not going to go into the history of the Ukraine, but I should like to point out to the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration minister that in that country today there is a population of over 42 million people, that it comprises a territory larger than France, that it is a separate republic in the Soviet union and is a charter member of the United Nations. When I say it is a republic I should like to qualify that by saying that it is a so-called republic because we know that the people there are not free. But even the recognition that this country has received from the Russians has only been after many millions of people have died fighting for freedom. As recently as the 1930's millions of them were starved deliberately on directions from Moscow because they believed in freedom and wanted to separate themselves from the Russian empire. The Russians have not been able to suppress that spirit of freedom although they have tried to do so for many years.
To touch briefly on history, I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to what happened in the year 1863. The Russian government, by a special decree, ordered the printing of all books and newspapers in the Ukrainian language to stop. When the Ukrainians appealed this decision to the government the minister of the interior, at that time Count Valuev, replied:
The Ukrainian language never existed, does not exist and shall never exist.
That happened in the year 1863. Yet since that time, after millions of people have died for freedom in an effort to break away from the Russian tyranny, they have at least been given the recognition of being a separate republic and have been recognized as a charter member of the United Nations. May I also point out to the minister that as recently as the 20th of November, 1917, after the czarist empire crumbled, the Ukraine became independent. If the western world had realized at that time the significance of what was happening, and if these people who had been trying to obtain their freedom and did obtain it for a short period of time had only received support from the western world, the Ukraine today would not be a part of the Russian empire, and Russia probably would not be the menace she is to the western world and to Canada in particular.
These newcomers who came to this country especially after the last war probably feel more keenly about this matter than any other ethnic group in the country and one can appreciate their reasons. They are the ones who have actually witnessed the liquidation of masses of their fellow countrymen on directions from Moscow. In spite of pressure they refused to go back to the Ukraine from the displaced persons camps, and they consider themselves very fortunate indeed to


have been able to reach the shores of Canada and to be in a position to be able to make application for Canadian citizenship after spending some time here.
For such people in particular the kind of statement contained in the letter from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is indeed most humiliating. Knowing the minister as I do, I am sure if he had known what was taking place he would never have allowed such a letter to be written to these newcomers. I am sure of that. We all know that is not the minister's way of thinking.


Mr. Ferguson:: How would he know?


John Decore: All you have to do is talk to the minister on any occasion with regard to his attitude to Canadians generally.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Born in this country or otherwise?


John Decore: So I draw this matter to the attention of the minister with the hope that this sort of thing will not be repeated and with the hope that the minister will see to it that these people will be given the privilege of naming their country of birth as the Ukraine when they are making application for citizenship, because it is in conformity with the actual facts as they exist today and in conformity with history. If the minister should agree to that, then I would also suggest that any certificates already issued be changed accordingly if the people concerned want to have them so changed. With this in mind, I hope the minister will be able to see fit to make the necessary changes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to deal with this point right away. First of all, I want to express my sincere regret. As the hon. member correctly stated, I was quite unaware that to this circular letter sent out as a receipt for applications for citizenship in cases where there have to be some corrections or additions made-and that very often happens-the sentence to which he referred was added. The sentence was substantially as he read it, and I do not think there is any special reason why I should read it. The words are slightly different but the sense is quite the same. I can imagine how the hon. member for Greenwood, who like me was born in this country, would feel if the Department of Citizenship and Immigration said to applicants who put Scotland as their birthplace, "In your application you say you were born in Scotland; as this name pertains to a territory, district or province rather than a country it is requested that you state the name of the country in which you were born".


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about your own constituents?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My own constituents, as the hon. member knows quite well because he, like me, is a sea lawyer, except those people who immigrated into Newfoundland from some foreign country, were born in Canada.
I do not wish to be diverted from what I am saying about this matter now.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Do not divert him now.


Mr. Macdonnell:: You diverted yourself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that if Scotland had been used instead of the Ukraine in this instance, there would have been indignation which would have reached the ears of the minister rather sooner than this did. I would say this practice is one for which I, as minister, am constitutionally responsible.
No such sentence ever appeared until a few months ago. It has been used only since I was minister. I say that because I do not want anyone to think I am blaming my predecessor or anyone else. I had not had this matter drawn to my attention before.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We knew it was you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right; the responsibility was mine. I am not going to plead ignorance, though I was ignorant of it. I say, sir, it was an error that was honestly made by a very conscientious civil servant who would not knowingly hurt anybody anywhere. It was made, and it was made with the intention of helping the people who make these applications.
Now, it is within the knowledge of many hon. members that citizenship certificates are used very frequently for identification of one kind or another. It has been the experience of the department that sometimes questions are raised about where some places really are. As the hon. member for Vegreville correctly stated, for many years the Ukraine has been juridically part of other states bearing other names. It is my honest opinion it is an advantage to the holder of a certificate, in certain circumstances, to have the juridical name of the country in which he was born also on his certificate. I have consulted my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, about this matter and from now on any applicant who wishes to state that he was born in the Ukraine and nothing else, will not be requested to amplify that at all so far as the country is concerned.
I shall have a circular prepared as quickly as possible to indicate that it might be to the advantage of applicants to indicate that the part of the Ukraine in which they were born was, at the time of their birth, under the jurisdiction of, say, Poland, Czechoslovakia or
1955	3519
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration imperial Russia, or that it is now the Ukrainian S.S.R., or whatever the fact may be. However, no one will be required to say that; it will be entirely optional.
I do not want to mislead anyone. There is another question on the application form that has to be answered, and that is question No. 4. It says, "I am a subject or citizen of-", and there, of course, it is absolutely imperative that the applicant put what his juridical status is, however disagreeable it may be to him. If the nationality of which he is divesting himself is Polish or Czechoslovakian that would have to be put. In the case of many of these newcomers to whom the hon. gentleman has referred, they are stateless, and of course that is a proper answer if it is a truthful one. But so far as the place of birth is concerned, and that is all that is inserted on a citizenship certificate, it will be quite sufficient to give the name of the place and so on, and for the name of the country to say Ukraine, and nothing else.
Perhaps I should repeat that I think it might be of advantage, especially to those people who have cause to leave the country on visits, to amplify it a bit, but that will depend entirely on them and what they want to do. In the case of those who now possess a certificate, and who would like to have the certificate altered so as to indicate that their birth was in the Ukraine, the department will be happy to have that done just as quickly as it is possible after the receipt of the certificate. Now, that may not be by return mail because I would not want to hold up the current certificates while these corrections are being made. I am sure the hon. member for Vegreville would not want that either, but the corrections will be made just as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, there was a matter about which I wanted to ask the minister when last we discussed the question of immigration and dealt with the numbers who had come into Canada in recent years. I was coming to the point of dealing with the question as to the numbers of people who have left Canada in the last 10 years, since 1945. I realize that so far as the records of the department are concerned they might not reveal the entire picture. I have endeavoured to secure information on this subject as a result of investigations in the United States through departments of government.
If those records which I have are correct, they reveal a tremendous exodus taking place from Canada to the United States, which has even been accelerated to a degree in recent

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration years. According to the records of the minister some one million people have come into Canada since 1945, over a million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is about 1,200,000.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I should like the minister to let the house and the country know what records he has in this regard: first, the numbers of people who are Canadian by birth or naturalization who have left Canada year by year since 1945; secondly, what records has he as to the numbers of immigrants who have come to Canada since 1945, who have not stayed here long enough to secure nor have they secured naturalization but who have more or less used Canada as an intervening stopping-off place to enable them to be in a better position to establish themselves in the United States? So far as the latter figures are concerned, I know they are difficult to obtain.
I ask the minister whether or not the suggestion that has come to me, that the numbers of non-naturalized Canadians, in other words aliens who have stopped in Canada for a period of years and who have not taken out naturalization but have gone to the United States since 1945, would amount to about 240,000? I ask him what he has to say in that regard. If that be true, that number, together with the records which the minister has indicated concerning the numbers of Canadians who have gone to the United States, would appear to lead to the conclusion that for every million immigrants who come into Canada about 515,000 Canadians, or people who came in as immigrants, have in the same period emigrated to the United States. That is one of the serious problems that affect us in our country, and one that demands the serious consideration of those in authority.^ For, certainly, if Canada's population during the intervening years since confederation had not been depleted continuously by migration from this country, our population would be immeasurably greater than it is today.
By way of an aside, may I point out that only the other day I was reading the year book for 1868 in which the fathers of confederation estimated that by 1940, under normal circumstances, the population of Canada would be in excess of 41 million people- more than three times our population today.
I shall deal with several points at this time, because X do not wish to hold up the passage of the estimates, or to delay this general discussion. There is another matter in connection with immigration upon which I should like to secure information. I join with the hon. member for Vegreville, in the remarks he made a few moments ago.


I remember when the major portion of the first group of Ukrainian immigrants came to this country in the early years of this century. Today in the province of Saskatchewan the first immigrant of that race is still living. Through the intervening years I have watched the amazing record established by the people of Ukrainian origin, in their contribution to the building of a great Canadian citizenship. I know that people of that racial origin will be most happy with the announcement made by the minister concerning the rectification of applications, in accordance with the suggestion by the hon. member.
I should like now to ask a question connected with emigration. Has the minister any record to indicate that in the last year or year and a half large numbers of Canadian young men have appeared at immigration offices in this country and have been directed to the offices of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the purpose of having their fingerprints taken, so that they might go to the United States. This information has come to me from an official in the immigration branch-or, at least, who was in the immigration branch. I would ask the minister if, in fact, records are kept to indicate the numbers of young Canadians who have indicated their desire to go to the United States for the purpose of joining the United States army. I would ask the minister to deal with that question because, if my information is correct-and, having regard to its source, I have no doubt that it is-it represents a challenging problem and one that deserves attention.
The third phase in connection with immigration is this: Are we doing everything we can to secure desirable immigrants in parts of Europe and the Middle East? I have in mind particularly the state of Israel. While I was there last year one or two university graduates-one in particular, from Jordan- indicated their desire to come to Canada, and I took up the question with the department. Both these young men were of the Christian faith. When I asked what could be done to facilitate the sending of application forms to them, the reply I received from the deputy minister, Mr. Fortier, was to the effect that the department did not have complete facilities in Jerusalem for the necessary examination of prospective immigrants; and therefore it was regretted that the department was unable to consider the entry of anyone from there at this time.
The one referred to, in the reply received from the deputy minister, was a young man of high educational attainments and scientific skill. He was a graduate in science, and one who could have made a great contribution

to this country. I would ask the minister whether it is intended to expand the number of countries to which will be accredited immigration officers so as to enable entry of those who are considered desirable.
I shall now pass on to one other subject, and then I shall have concluded the questions I intend to ask 'the minister. I come now to the question of the Indian population.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member mind holding that question until we reach Indian affairs branch. It would make it much easier to reply if we were to proceed in that way.


John George Diefenbaker: I certainly shall. I shall not press the question now, because I do not want to do anything that would interfere in any way with facilitating the discussion of the estimates.
However, one other matter comes to my mind in connection with immigration. Are the applications for every applicant for naturalization checked by the mounted police before the grant of naturalization is made? I have in mind a certain person, whose name I shall give the minister, who made application for naturalization. When the police communicated with him to ascertain his record, about which there was some question, the answer he made was, "I have already got my naturalization certificate; there it is".
I suggest to the minister that if that course is being followed in other cases, then it constitutes a dangerous loophole, permitting the admission to the ranks of Canadian citizenship of those who, by reason of their communist background, should not be admitted to citizenship. I feel that every care should be taken to ensure that citizenship shall not be conferred upon those coming from lands where communist principles are followed. I refer to those who would come to Canada because of advantageous economic conditions but who, at the same time, would desire to retain their allegiance to a foreign philosophy. I believe strict and careful examination should be made in every case, and that no certificate of naturalization should be granted without full and complete examination of the antecedents of the applicant. There should be most careful scrutiny with a view to sifting out those who ought not to become citizens by reason of their communist activities. Careful scrutiny should be made of their past record, and we should have the assurance that when they come here they will not continue past activities.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I deal with these various points raised by the hon. gentleman before they are driven from my
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration mind by listening to another hon. member?
I should like to point out first that I think the hon. gentleman is allowing his Saskatchewan patriotism to carry him a little far. The first Ukrainian immigrant who came to Canada was Wasyl Eleniak who came to the constituency of Vegreville in Alberta, and is still living there at the age of 96. I had the great pleasure of sending him a message on his birthday anniversary the other day.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister will allow me, he will remember it was mentioned in the classics that over the years several places have claimed to be the birthplace of Homer. I noticed that the Saskatchewan Star-Phoenix took that gentleman the other day and moved him, as I recall, into the province of Saskatchewan.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This emulation I think is worthy of both provinces, and I offer not the slightest objection to it.
To take the questions that I can answer most briefly first, to say that the immigration branch acts as an immigration department for the United States is not correct. If there is any paid servant of the taxpayers of Canada in the immigration branch who is conducting himself in that way I should like to have a report on him.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no suggestion of that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understood the hon.
gentleman to say that our branch was directing people to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I misunderstood-


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend does not understand it at all. In the case of people applying to have fingerprints taken I said the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has suggested that they be taken by the mounted police, but there is no participation in any such thing, and it was never suggested in the remotest degree.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, all I can say is that if it had nothing to do with the immigration branch, the whole thing is a complete mystery to me. I never heard anything about it before, and if it has nothing to do with the immigration branch, I do not think I can reasonably be expected to give any answer about it.
To come to the question of immigration from Israel, I am very grateful to the hon. member for Prince Albert for raising the matter, because there does seem to be a good deal of misunderstanding about it, which I do not want to contribute to and
3522	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration which I sincerely hope I can remove, at least in part. Israel, like Canada, is a country seeking immigrants. Israel, like Canada, is trying to add to its population by immigration, and it has been our policy since the war-and I have no doubt it was before-not to go to countries of immigration to look for immigrants. In other words, we do not try to encourage immigration into Canada from Australia, from New Zealand or from South American countries that are seeking to get people, or from Israel. I thing I am betraying no confidences when I say that representations have been made to us more than once by the government of Israel to the effect that they would view with concern any attempt on our part to look to Israel for immigrants.
Now, that does not mean that anyone who lives in Israel is automatically excluded from Canada. There are many cases where families have been separated and where the husband may be in Israel and the wife here in Canada, or where the children or the parents may be there. We do try to provide through the legation which was recently established in Israel a very limited service to deal with humanitarian and compassionate cases of that kind; but we are not seeking immigrants from Israel. As a matter of fact I think I may say that our department, like all other Canadians, welcomes the peaceful development of Israel and we do not want in any way to compete with them for people, and I do not think it would be a friendly act to do so.
It may be that there are individuals in Israel who would very much like to come to Canada, but if we systematically encouraged that kind of movement I think it would be considered by the authorities there to be a regrettable interference with what they are attempting to accomplish.


Mr. Michener:: Will the minister permit me to ask a question on that same subject? That of course is an understandable point of view, but there is a different consideration where families are concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, quite.


Daniel Roland Michener: The grievances that have come to my notice with respect to emigration from Israel relate to relatives here who want to bring close relatives from Israel, and they are finding the greatest difficulty in doing so because apparently there is no machinery for dealing with that situation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, by close relatives I mean close relatives in the strictest sense.
I mean parents and children, not nephews, not cousins or collateral relations of any kind, because I suppose a great proportion of the


population of Israel have relatives somewhere in North America and if the net were widened at all it would not mean anything.


Daniel Roland Michener: I am referring to close relatives.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the same sense?


Daniel Roland Michener: For example, the daughter is free to come but there is no way to see whether her medical or other qualifications, formal qualifications, can be met, and so it is impossible for families who have close relatives to be reunited.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that situation is improving a little and will improve quite a bit more when our mission there has really found its feet. Of course, it has just been established in the last few months, as hon. members know.
I now come to the question of migration to the United States. I suppose I can make an answer that strictly speaking, in the narrow sense of the term, it is not the business of the immigration branch at all, but I am not going to make any such answer. I was asked some questions about this upstairs and I gave a table which is to be found on page 61 of the evidence of the estimates committee dated Monday, February 28. It was derived from the United States statistics. The hon. gentleman suggested that this should be put on the record. I wonder whether I might have the consent of the committee to have the second paragraph on this page inserted in the record without reading it?
The table follows:


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question asked was the number of emigrants from Canada to the United States during the period 1945 to June 1954. I have here the number of emigrants from Canada to the United States for the United States fiscal year, July 1 to June 30 during the period 1945 to 1954:
Year	Total
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
11,079
20,434
23,467
24,788
24,516
21,885
25,880
33.354
36.283
34,873
Total	 256,559
These are taken, for the period 1945 to 1950, from a Dominion Bureau of Statistics report which quotes the United States immigration and naturalization service as the source thereof. The figures for 1951 to 1954 were taken from a report prepared by the statistical branch of the United States immigration and naturalization service.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the total for 10 years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The total for 10 years is 256,000.


John George Diefenbaker: And these are naturalized Canadians?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It represents Canadian citizens, whether native-born or naturalized. I am not really quite convinced that it is the net figure because, as everyone knows, particularly for Canadian citizens, and more particularly for Canadian-born citizens, there is the very greatest ease of movement back and forth across the border. I suspect that on many occasions someone is shown in these United States figures as having been a Canadian immigrant to the United States who goes there and perhaps spends a year, and then comes back, and is not registered as a returning Canadian resident in the United States but merely as a visitor over there, and therefore we do not get the net figure. The difference would not be very great.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister any figures to show the numbers who left Canada but were not naturalized?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am coming to that. I do not think I have forgotten the hon. gentleman's question. I have no figures of any kind in which I would place the slightest reliance to show what number of immigrants or aliens, even though they were not recent immigrants but resident in Canada for some time, may have gone to the United States in the past 10 years. I would be incredulous of the figure the hon. gentleman gave. Two hundred and forty thousand strikes me as much too high in relation to what we do know about the increase of the population of Canada over this last decade.
However, I think we will be able, when the census is taken and we get the figures in 1956, by the process of taking the natural increase and the known figures for immigration to arrive at a pretty fair figure of the numbers who have been lost, not only to the United States, but to all countries, by every form of emigration. Of course, it will not be possible from the census to break them down, but we will get the global figure in that way. To be quite candid about it, this to my mind is one of the biggest advantages of having the census taken in 1956, but I do not think we will really have any firm idea of what the net effect on the Canadian population has been of the post-war immigration until we have the census figures. As a matter of fact, I would appreciate from any source any practical, workable suggestions for measuring the emigration from Canada. It would be of the greatest possible help to the planning of our department to have such figures. We try to get every bit
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of information we can, on which we can place any reliance. For a variety of reasons unless we establish inquisitorial methods, it is very difficult to get it, except in the way I have suggested when the census is taken.
To come to the other question asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), about the checking of the applications for citizenship: as I think all members of the committee know, an application for citizenship must be filed with the clerk of the court. That is prescribed in section 27 of the act. It must be posted by the clerk in a conspicuous place in his office, or as otherwise prescribed by regulation, continuously for a period of at least three months before the application is heard by the court. The purpose of that is not merely to check the possibilities of what, I hope, I will not be misinterpreted in describing in a general way as subversive tendencies, but also to check the ordinary police records of applicants for citizenship. As the committee knows, under the Immigration Act the minister has a certain responsibility if landed immigrants are convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. It enables interested persons to make representations to the court. The onus is placed on the judge of deciding these questions of good character and potentialities for good citizenship of the kind mentioned by the hon. member.
It is no secret, I think-at any rate it will not be from now on-that the department does avail itself of the services of the R.C.M.P. for that purpose. It may be that once in a while, in an individual case, something may happen so that it is not done as it should be. I would be very much surprised if there were not a slip once in a while. I am sure the county judges who do this work all over this country-I can say this from my own recent personal knowledge because I recently wrote a circular letter to all of them and have had a series of most interesting replies from many of them-are taking a deep personal interest in this work. I am glad to say that I think most of them are more concerned about giving a little encouragement to these people to become good citizens than trying to find too many flaws in their records. But if there are serious flaws, we try to do our best to find them, and I think the judges do too.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment briefly on a question raised by the hon. member for Vegreville to which the minister has already made a reply. I do so because I think that the matter he raised is important beyond the technicalities involved. I am very glad that the minister has admitted that the department-I shall not use the words
3524	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration "was at fault"-certainly was not using good judgment in some of the letters that went out. The hon. member for Vegreville stated that it amounted to an insult to have the kind of letters that were written to applicants. The minister and others may have thought that a rather strong word, but in view of the circumstances I think that was well justified because there has been, I think, a tendency for a certain amount of double talk on this question of these nations that have lost their sovereignty. When one takes into consideration that only as recently as the 8th of July, 1953, which date has some significance in that it was fairly close to a national event which took place that summer, the Prime Minister himself, speaking to the all-Canada congress of the Ukrainian Canadian committee, used these words, I would like to place them on the record because I think they are rather important coming from the Prime Minister of Canada. In reference to the struggle for the independence of the Ukraine, he used these words:
There may be many setbacks and disappointments, but all who believe this world is presided over by a Divine Providence must believe that one day the Ukrainian people will find a solid basis for political and cultural self-expression under a government, which, because freely chosen, will freely represent them. Then the long night of oppression will be over.
I quote those words with approval. All through that speech made on that date the words "Ukraine" and "Ukrainian people" appear again and again. With that background and taking that into consideration, one can easily understand the disappointment and shock that a person would feel on receiving a letter from an official in the department of immigration informing him quite blandly and bluntly that there is no such place as the Ukraine.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No such country.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: One can imagine the reaction of anyone who fell under similar circumstances. I believe that the minister has done himself a great deal of good today by having quite frankly and openly admitted that it was at least bad judgment and agreeing to have that change made. While on that subject, I think, because of the general interest in the question, it could be pointed out that when the minister referred to the political regions concerned, the impression should not be left that any large number-and certainly not the majority of the immigrants coming in recent years to Canada-of Ukrainian origin came from jurisdictions under the U.S.S.R., because that is not the case. As a matter of fact, at the end of the second world


war the Ukraine was partitioned, as hon. members know, into four separate regions. There was a part under the U.S.S.R., a part that came under Poland, another portion that came into Austria, and a part under Czechoslovakia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the hon. gentleman say "the second world war"?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The first world war. That situation continued until the second world war. As a result of certain agreements into which we entered at Yalta and other places the situation came about whereby all the regions known as the Ukraine fell within the boundaries of the U.S.S.R.-not only the Ukraine, but at least a part of Poland and a good part of some other nations. When that came about, the great majority of those who left those regions, and for the time being were in a state of exile as displaced persons in Germany, France and other countries, were people who came from that area which had been under Austria and under Poland. There would be a minority, and probably a small minority, that would be from Russia proper, simply because of the fact that they could not get out. Under those circumstances I should not like the impression to be left that they came from the U.S.S.R. in the first place, because they did not. Therefore stating to a person that he must not use the word "Ukraine" as his country of birth is not asking that he state his correct nationality but, as a matter of fact, it is almost forcing him to state his wrong nationality by trying to force him into a region from which he did not come.
I am glad that matter is being cleared up. It has more effect in the long run, as I said, than has the technical matter involved. As the minister will realize, and as do all hon. members, the cold war has not ended and the forces of communism in the Ukraine and in Moscow are extremely anxious to obtain any material on which they can lay their hands, and on the basis of which they can make political hay or propaganda. It is matters like these which cause discontent and irritation-and quite justifiably so-which fall into their hands and which are built up and exaggerated to great proportions in order to discredit the democratic countries.
I believe it is a fortunate thing many of the countries of the free world, particularly Great Britain, have taken some steps in recent years which have brought to the side of the western nations and to the side of freedom the peoples of Asia. I think it should be stated at this time that the one great act of statesmanship performed by the government of Great Britain under the leadership

of Right Hon. Clement Attlee, when they granted independence to India, did more to tip the scales in favour of the free countries, so far as Asia is concerned, than did any other event since the second world war ended. One can imagine what kind of a field day the communists would have had at Bandung recently had it not been for the fact that Nehru and others were there to speak for the democratic world.
These things which may appear to be small on the surface and perhaps unimportant in the eyes of some people have projected themselves into the international sphere with an importance quite beyond that of their immediate effect in our own country. I think it is quite important that, from time to time when these matters arise, the minister be as cautious as possible and try to straighten the situation out before it creates resentment in the first place and before it becomes, in the second place, an excuse or a thin edge of the wedge for the communist forces, supplying them with something with which to make propaganda.
I think the minister is to be commended for the attitude he has taken today. I think the hon. member for Vegreville is to be commended for having brought this matter to the attention of the committee.
I think the minister is rather painfully aware-from the rather painful emphasis placed on a certain incident-of how easy it is to do something which causes resentment. In this case I think he has to a great extent retrieved himself by taking prompt and, in my judgment, reasonable action.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Dauphin. I agree completely with everything he has said. I must say that no one could regret more than I do that this action was taken. In fairness to the officials who took it, I feel I must say this. I do not object at all to the word "insult", but it was a most unintentional one. The moment the matter was drawn to my attention, the greatest regret was expressed by the officials concerned. These are devoted people who work extremely hard in this branch; and the last thing they want to do is to hurt the feelings of any Canadians, no matter from where they come.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: In order that there may be no misunderstanding may I at this point say that, so far as I am concerned personally, I have found that we have received good co-operation from the officials of the department of immigration. I am certainly not trying to leave the impression that anyone intentionally tried to insult anyone. But that
6, 1955	3525
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration is the reason I drew attention to the international phase of this situation. I think it is important that the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration work rather closely together in order that the policy of the government on these matters may be clear.
May I be permitted just to continue for a moment or two and say that the same situation will arise in a short time with respect to other countries. There is that sector, as I have mentioned, of Poland which is now in the U.S.S.R. There are the Baltic countries which find themselves in the same situation. For the time being the department has ruled that any territorial changes made as a result of the second world war shall not be taken into consideration. That ruling is fine so far as it goes, but the dead hand of time has a tendency to condone the acquisition of territory by conquest. We have seen that thing happen. I hope the government of Canada will be alive to that situation and will not allow itself to fall into that trap in the future.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, to have at last been able to catch your kindly and benevolent eye. As a matter of fact, I have been waiting since last Friday to make a few remarks on this important subject of immigration. Usually under these circumstances there is a tendency for speeches to accumulate and to gather momentum; but I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I shall be brief in what I have to say here this afternoon.
I want to deal for a moment with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and its appearance before the committee on the estimates. I do so because I arrived on that committee late in the proceedings. My name was added to the membership when the departmental discussions were half concluded, with the result that I did not have an opportunity actually to take part in the important preliminary discussions which endeavoured to appraise the effectiveness of the committee method of handling the estimates of the various departments. I am also dealing with it briefly because I feel that this is an important innovation in our parliamentary procedure.
Unfortunately I came away from that committee feeling that we had not accomplished too much by way of settling fundamental difficulties and misunderstandings relating to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. From the extended discussion which has gone on with respect to this first item, I think it will be concluded that other members are of the same opinion.
In my opinion there are three reasons why the discussion in the committee on estimates
3526	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration was not as successful as it might have been. I am going to state those three reasons briefly and quite specifically. First of all-and there was some discussion on this point- I believe the committee felt somewhat inhibited because of the presence of the minister in a dominating role. I know the interpretation of the minister with regard to the work of the committee. He regards it as a miniature of the committee of the whole sitting on the estimates. Unfortunately, if that precedent becomes established where a department comes under censure by public opinion, there is a great possibility of the committee being substituted for a fullblown committee of inquiry, with the result that this estimates committee could become merely a whitewash procedure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate
very much to interrupt the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, for whom I have very great esteem, but he is a member of parliament senior to me and it does seem to me there is a rule of the house that a question which has been decided should not be further debated in the same session. The question of whether the minister should be a member of the committee was debated and decided by the house.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether you are going to restrict me in discussing this point in a general way. As I have already indicated, I think it is important that particularly the members of the house who took part in the proceedings of the committee should have an opportunity to give their viewpoints on the matter. I am not actually saying that the minister should not be permitted to be a member of the committee. I am merely indicating that, from my standpoint at least, one of the reasons why I feel the committee was not as effective as it might have been was that the minister was there in a dominating role. I have not sought to deny him the right to be a member of the committee. He, as a native of Manitoba, has all the geniality of most Manitobans, and from that standpoint he added much to the atmosphere of the committee. In fact on certain occasions during the discussions the minister, by flattery, cajolery and the general art of ingratiation, was able to create an atmosphere of considerable congeniality.
I think the effect was somewhat disarming because when a member of the committee like the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, a man of considerable discernment, indicates at the end of the discussions that he is completely satisfied with what has taken place, one becomes aware of the minister's skill so far as winning friends and influencing people is concerned. Unfortunately, however,


instead of the committee acting as a group conscientiously considering the many problems relating to immigration-they have been referred to here this afternoon and last Friday-the committee tended to become somewhat of a mutual admiration society.
That brings me to the second weakness that appeared in the committee. In my view it became a mutual admiration society because of the inability to call for persons and papers outside of the department.


Mr. Winters:: I wonder whether the hon.
member would mind if I raised a point of order. This particular matter was debated and voted on, and therefore I think it is decidedly out of order to debate it at this time. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether you would see eye to eye with me on that point.


The Chairman:: I had intended to rise previously when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration raised his point of order, but I thought the hon. member who had the floor was concluding his remarks. I must find that I agree with both points of order that have been raised, and I must ask the hon. member for Brandon-Souris to confine his remarks to a general discussion of the affairs of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, as we usually do on the first item of a department. I realize we are breaking new ground in that this is the first time a department's estimates have been considered in committee of supply after having been considered in an estimates committee.
At the same time, our rules have been well established over many years and they generally give us the opportunity of debating certain matters at the most opportune time. On the first item of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration we have one of the best opportunities to debate the policies and administration of the department. This is certainly not the best opportunity to debate the proceedings of the committee on estimates or the advisability or inadvisability of having a committee on estimates. Therefore I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to a discussion of the affairs of the department.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall abide by your ruling and will simply conclude this part of my remarks by saying that in dealing with the problems facing parliament in this day and age, when the business of the house is growing in complexity, unfortunately we tend to resolve the difficulty by shortening discussion instead of providing for new procedures and techniques that would bring about a broader, wider and deeper discussion of parliamentary matters. That is not in the best interests of the parliamentary processes, as many authorities

have said in recent days in writings on such themes as the passing of parliament and so on.
I turn now to a few general remarks on the department. Since the estimates committee met, I have had occasion to present two or three cases to the immigration department for its consideration. While there was an indication during the proceedings of the committee, if I may refer to that body, that the processes would be speeded up and matters expedited as the result of the representations made there, I have discovered that we still face the same difficulty of delayed decisions on certain immigration matters. There is the same confusion, the same pious platitudes referred to in the press, and the same tendency to talk around the point. With respect to one case dating back to 1953 I have received a reply from the minister reading in part as follows:
I am unable to state when these inquiries will be completed but you may be certain the officials concerned will do their utmost in the matter. I shall of course keep you informed of developments.
I have been receiving the same answer since March, 1953.
There is one specific point I should like to raise at this time relating to Chinese immigration. I am given to understand that the regulations relating to the migration of Chinese citizens into Canada apply to Chinese-American citizens in the same way as they do to any other prospective oriental immigrants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is persons of Chinese race.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Persons of Chinese race.
Well now, that leads me to make another brief comment on the lack of lucidity in departmental policy. According to the general statement of 1947 one of the major categories in determining who were eligible to migrate to Canada was this factor of not altering the fundamental character of the people. It is difficult to know what is meant by "fundamental character". It is difficult to know whether it means race, culture or the other characteristics that might be summed up in that phrase "fundamental character".
In the case of a Chinese American citizen, of course, there is no difficulty of assimilation because his background is largely American. He has been educated in American schools; he thinks as an American, and there is no difficulty whatever from the standpoint of assimilation or from the standpoint of cultural conflict. It would appear, therefore, that one interpretation of this very vague definition of policy is definitely discriminatory on the basis of race. I should like to submit that that is not a very enlightened policy in the year
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration 1955 when the world has become a veritable whispering gallery, and when we are faced with all these sociological threats of the atomic era.
I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion, Mr. Chairman, by stating that last evening we listened to a very comprehensive discussion of the immigration problem by the hon. member for Cartier. There is no need for me to repeat the many excellent points he raised in that discussion, but I think it is a speech that deserves the consideration of the department. Certainly he set forth a much more vigorous, much more visionary policy for 1955 than the studied vagueness of the 1947 policy which it would seem the department is still following.


Mr. MacKenzie:: I have no desire at all at this time to hold up the estimates of this department. I must say that, by and large, I have had very good co-operation from the immigration officials. I have found them most co-operative when cases had merit and when there was some justification for bringing people into Canada.
But there is one particular case that has caused me a great deal of concern. I have written a great many letters and done a lot of telephoning in connection with it. I am not sure it has been brought to the minister's attention. The case concerns a family that I knew very well in Shanghai, China. In my opinion, they were good citizens. I believe their origin was central European, and they had a very good business in Shanghai. The family consisted of the parents, who were middle aged, a daughter who was married and the son in law. The daughter and her husband came to Canada a few years ago and settled in Vancouver. They would have brought the parents at that time but they were not in a financial position to pay the passage and, in any event, they had no place in which to settle.
These people have now become well established in Vancouver, and are endeavouring to bring the parents to Canada. Since Canada has no representative in China, I believe communication is had through the British consul situated in Shanghai. Application has been made to the British consul and a Canadian visa has been obtained. The parents have had their medical and have all assurances that they can come to Canada, but they are unable to get an exit permit from the Chinese government. My opinion is that they have never been able to get their case understood by the right authorities in China, because there would be no logical reason for the Chinese government keeping them there. They will never contribute anything to the national life, and they are only consumers.
3528	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I would suggest that the minister might use a little influence with the British consul in an attempt to show the Chinese government that these people should be permitted to come to Canada. I do not know whether or not that is regular, but I feel sure that these people are not able to get their request understood by the proper Chinese authorities. As a matter of fact, I would not mind writing to Chou En-lai myself if I thought he would ever get the letter or that it would do any good. I suggest that something along that line could be done, because these people are very anxious to have their parents come to Vancouver. They are well established and able to provide for them, and the family should be united if at all possible.


Mr. Winch:: I am in somewhat the same position as the previous speaker, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to hold up these estimates, but this committee is the only place that I can get an answer to a certain question. I should like to ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, how one proves he is a Canadian citizen. I ask that question because about two months ago the department under the control of the minister sent to all members I presume-I received one anyway-a certain communication.
I want to refer to the introduction. I do not know what to call it, Mr. Chairman, because there is no heading on it. The communication has these words at the bottom of it, "Department of Citizenship and Immigration; Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, minister; Laval Fortier, deputy minister". I am not going to quote all of it, but it says this:
As a convenience to Canadian citizens, who wish to have a certificate of citizenship which can be carried easily with them, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration now has available a miniature certificate which fits into wallet or purse.


Mr. Mclvor:: Hear, hear; that is right.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes. Farther down, the communication reads:
The application form, (C.R.l), which may be obtained from any clerk of court or from the registrar of Canadian citizenship, Ottawa, must be fully completed by the applicant, sworn to before a notary public, commissioner for oaths or justice of the peace, and sent together with the statutory fee of $2 to-
And so on. I have not replied to this as yet because the communication says this form C.R.l must be fully completed. At the same time as I received the communication I got a copy of form C.R.l. Here is form C.R.l. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I am a Canadian citizen. At least, I was a member of the British Columbia legislature for 20 years, I have been here for two sessions, and no one has yet challenged that fact. If it is correct
[Mr. MacKenzie.l

that form C.R.l must be fully completed, then I say the reason I have not done so is that it is impossible for me to do it. It is absolutely impossible. So I am asking this question. Here is form C.R.l, and we will start on the first page. "My place of birth is"-O.K., I can prove that; I have my certificate. Then, "My date of birth is"-yes, I can prove that, because I have my birth certificate. Then, "My occupation is"-you know, that has me a bit stumped.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It never bothered me.


Harold Edward Winch: It won't after the next election, either. I am an electrician by trade, and I sign that way. But for 22 years I have been an elected member.
Then, "Years of experience"-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Sure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What occupation did he put on the ballot paper?


Harold Edward Winch: "Electrician".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, that would be satisfactory.


Harold Edward Winch: Fine. It says, "State any other occupational skills". Do I say "M.P."? However, that is only by the way. But these questions can bother an awful lot of people.
And now I am coming to the important part -because I was not born in Canada, I was born in England. The minister is shaking his head, because he does not know what I am coming to. But you will shake your head the other way when you do.
Now, look, almost underneath this, on the front page, it says, "I am a Canadian citizen by"-well, I can come only under two of these classifications, namely (B) (C). We find that (B) says, "Birth outside of Canada. (See appendix A)". And then classification (C) says, "Being a British subject with Canadian domicile, or by maintaining a place of domicile in Canada for 20 years immediately before January 1, 1947. (See appendix B)".
I could come under only those two classifications. All right; now let us turn to the back page, to appendix A and appendix B- and I am not being facetious about this, at all. I am only referring to it because of this document-which I cannot properly name- which says that form C.R.l must be fully completed if I want to have proof that I am a Canadian citizen.
O.K.; let us now look at appendix A and appendix B-because I must come under

either one or the other. Let us look at appendix A. Well, sir, I can answer only one question in appendix A-and I have no proof of even that one. I can answer it only because I honour my father.
What is the first question? It is this: "My responsible parent"-yes, "my responsible parent"-I honour my father. I will answer it that way. But I always thought it took two to have me born.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It only takes one to make you a Canadian citizen.


Harold Edward Winch: Maybe so, but it takes two to have me born. So, who is "my responsible parent". Is it my mother or is it my father?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I had better answer the hon. gentleman now.


Harold Edward Winch: Oh no, let me go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know whether the hon. member wants an answer.


Harold Edward Winch: Let me go ahead; answer later.


Mr. Hosking:: He is only wasting time.


Harold Edward Winch: I beg your pardon?


Henry Alfred Hosking: I said you are only wasting time.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, I don't think I am wasting time for the mothers and fathers of this country when I question having to answer who "responsible parents" are.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Maybe we will find out what babies the minister was talking about in Victoria.


Harold Edward Winch: I don't think I am wasting time. Now, this is something!-"My responsible parent". You know, it hit me as being wrong, as soon as I saw it. You ask me who my responsible parent is. That was an absolute insult, as soon as I saw it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, would the hon. gentleman let me answer.


Harold Edward Winch: You can answer after I am through.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly, and I shall be glad to.


Harold Edward Winch: "My responsible parent"-O.K.; let us go on after that. I come now to this: "Who was admitted to Canada on"-well, I know I came here in 1910. But, according to this, I cannot tell you the date, nor can I tell you the port of entry or the ship. In fact, I cannot tell you anything that would have to be answered in appendix A-except that my dad is Ernest Winch. That is all I can tell you. So, in this document you sent
6, 1955	3529
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration around to us a few months ago, which says that appendix A must be fully completed, I cannot answer the questions.
Then, suppose we go on to appendix B which, first of all, asks me to "Give full particulars of your entries and departures". Then it states "First arrival at"-and then there is a space for the "port", the "date" and the "ship".
Sir, in appendix B I cannot answer one single question.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You could find out if you wanted to.


Harold Edward Winch: Time after time, in old age pension applications, we hit this question: When did you arrive at the port of entry, on what ship and on what date? And it cannot be answered. I cannot answer it, to get my own little card that I would like to have; because it says here that I must fully complete this document. I would say that to complete it would be almost an impossibility for the great majority of people born outside of Canada.
So I would ask the minister now-and he has been jumping up several times-to explain how you prove you are a citizen, under your orders, when it is impossible to complete the document that you say has got to be filled out in full.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman shares with me and with a few other new members the distinction of having had no part in defining the phrase "responsible parent", because neither he nor I was here when the act was passed. However, most members in the house helped to pass the Canadian Citizenship Act; and if before making his speech this afternoon, the hon. gentleman had looked, as I should have thought, as an experienced legislator, he would have done, at the legislation upon which this document is based, he would have found that the expression "responsible parent" is defined in the interpretation section.
I do not think there is need for me to waste the time of the committee in reading the section, because most hon. members helped to put it through parliament.
But, of course, that is not the point at issue. If the hon. member had read the document at all carefully he would have seen that all he needed to do to establish the fact that he is a Canadian citizen was to indicate, as he has indicated today, that he was a British subject and had resided in Canada for 20 years before January 1, 1947. And, having done that, no other proof of any kind would have been necessary.
3530	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Harold Edward Winch: "And", "and", "and"-sign appendix B. Come on, now-sign appendix B; that must be done. And I cannot answer appendix B-I cannot answer one question in it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, if the hon. gentleman would send me his birth certificate I would have the form filled out for him, and save him the trouble.


Harold Edward Winch: O.K. But it is not going to stop there, because I am not interested myself. I know that, without doubt, I could have gone to my friend and got my certificate. I am talking on behalf of the thousands of people in Canada who get this form and do not know what to do with it; I am not worrying about myself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, on that point, the hon. gentleman read in the circular that the thing to do was to go to the clerk of the court. I think he would find that any clerk of the court would be willing to help him. I admit that some of the language sounds a little silly. I shall have a look at it to see whether we can improve it.


Harold Edward Winch: And the questions are stupid.


Colin Cameron: Perhaps there is something more than merely faulty language to it. I had the same reaction as the hon. member for Vancouver East and I was in the same position myself. I could not tell you what port I landed at or the date on which I landed. I was a child at the time. It is getting close to 50 years ago. But there are quite a lot of people in Canada who might have very serious difficulty in proving to you that they were qualified under that section. They were born in Britain; perhaps they had a British birth certificate. They might not even have that, and they might have great difficulty in proving that they had lived in Canada for the sufficient length of time. 1


John Whitney Pickersgill: That of course was one of the reasons why the 20-year rule was put in. It was to obviate that kind of difficulty. If there are any serious difficulties of this sort I shall be very glad indeed to give consideration to them. I recognize that the hon. member for Vancouver East is having a little fun at my expense.


Harold Edward Winch: No, sir.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I think that most of us, myself included, have difficulties, even though I have not the difficulties of either of the hon. gentlemen who have just spoken, but I have some others. I am allergic to forms. I hate filling them out. I get my secretary to do it, and she seems to know how. I do think there is a great deal to be said for simplifying those


forms in any way that that can be done; but there is an inherent difficulty. When you live in a country as we do, a country with immigrants from all quarters of the earth, the number of variations of experiences is so great that it is very hard to get a simplified form that will elicit the first time all the information that is necessary, and you have to balance, on the one hand, asking too many questions, and sometimes too complicated questions, against on the other hand having to write a second letter, which is also very annoying to applicants.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand that and, Mr. Chairman, please, I am not trying to embarrass the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not suggest that; I know you are just having fun.


Harold Edward Winch: No; it costs almost $6,000 an hour to keep the House of Commons in session, and I am not having fun and will never have fun at that expense. Did the minister know-and this applies to members of the House of Commons-that under his name the form says that C.R. 1 has to be fully completed in order to get your registration and your certificate as a Canadian citizen, and did he know what it entailed because, sir, I cannot answer completely any of these questions?


Colin Cameron: I do think that we who were, shall I say, unfortunate enough not to have been born in Canada and at the same time to have been born in the British Isles are in a rather anomalous position in Canada. We are, you know, Mr. Chairman, rather in the position of the man who said he was the only person in the gallery who had a certificate to prove that he was sane.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was in the house.


Colin Cameron: Well, sometimes I have felt that we are almost in a worse position than the other people who were born in Germany, in Italy, or anywhere else. They have a certificate to show that they are Canadians, but we who were born in the British Isles are sort of left floating in the air. It is rather difficult for us to prove our status. The minister should examine the wording of the act. Perhaps it may have to be amended to clear up the position of people like ourselves. It is simple enough for individuals like the hon. member for Vancouver East and me; we can prove it, but there are a lot of people who cannot.


Mr. Huffman:: May I bring to the attention of the minister the problem of young people born to naturalized Canadians but of foreign birth? These young people grow up and attend our Canadian schools and universities. The

young graduate from time to time finds lucrative employment in the United States or in some other country. Many employing companies feel that these young people will remain employed much longer if they become citizens of the country in which they are working, and often pressure is exerted on them to this end; consequently, they give up their citizenship. At this time I know that a number of these young people would like to return to Canada, but they hesitate to do so because they are required to wait five years before attaining Canadian citizenship again. May I recommend to the minister that this class of people be regarded as those coming within the one-year residence requirement for citizenship. I believe that these former Canadians will prove to be a great asset from the experience they have gained outside of Canada. This matter comes to my attention rather forcibly because only this week I had a senior class of boys from a Chatham school. This school was represented by seven different language groups. I believe the situation also comes about because of our close proximity to the United States border.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a provision of the law now. If they are natural-born Canadians it does not matter who their parents are.


Edward Blake Huffman: These young people came to this country with their parents, who were of foreign extraction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They were not bom in Canada.


Edward Blake Huffman: That is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The provision is only for natural-born Canadians.


Mr. Weselak:: A great deal of emphasis has been placed on some statistics in this debate in regard to questions relating to date and port of entry, and so on. I have had occasion to handle dozens of applications for citizenship for various people from various parts of the world in my constituency. In the majority of cases they do not know their port of entry or the exact date of entry and other related details; but I have always found that as long as the basic qualifications for citizenship are established the department has never refused an application on the ground that this information is not available.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. The minister and the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have a great job to do in settling all the differences that come to them from every country in the world. Like the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, I have had something to do with the officials of the department and 50433-223J
6, 1955	3531
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration they have treated me fairly well. I did not get all I wanted, but perhaps I wanted too much. I know I wanted two Chinese boys out in Fort William whose fathers were citizens of Canada, and I have not been successful in getting them in yet, but the fight is still on.
The reason I rose was to say that I tried for two years to get a family out from Poland. They were Hebrews or Jews. We got them out, and that family has been a credit to the country they came from and an asset to Canada. The boy and girl have now graduated from the university and they paid me the great honour at Christmastime of addressing me as Rabbi Dan Mclvor. I have a case now that bothers me, and I tell the minister that I am not going to let go. The young man in question has a father and mother, uncles and aunts and brothers and sisters in Fort William. He did a bad deed, but of course the temptation was not considered. He is now to be deported. His case should be reconsidered. I am sure that the parish priest and I will go good for the conduct of that boy in the future. It is not fair to punish his family by sending him out of Canada. He is now in Guelph. I can give the full particulars to the minister, and I shall keep on trying for his answer. I ask that this case be reconsidered, and not ended, as the letter which I received today indicated.


Harold Edward Winch: There is one statement I should like to make, Mr. Chairman. I always like to be absolutely honest. I do want it known that since I first came here as a result of the election on August 10, 1953, I have had a number of immigration cases. I ran into trouble on most of them. I want to say, because I think it is only fair to say it, that since the present minister has been in his post he has reviewed all the cases I have drawn to the attention of his department since I first came here. All have been adjusted by him, with the exception of one, and it is not his fault that this last one has not been adjusted. I want to say that I have had the finest co-operation from the minister and all cases have been satisfactorily adjusted.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it plain at the outset that anything I might say is not with the idea that I am opposed to immigration. I am not opposed to immigration. I realize that all our forefathers were immigrants at some time, and some of them were even more than immigrants; they took over this country by brute force. The only genuine Canadian babies are the Indians and Eskimos in our country.
I should like to add one little matter to a point that was raised by the hon. member
3532	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration for Vegreville and the hon. member for
Dauphin. When Canadians, even though they have been in Canada for a good number of years and are naturalized, happen to go to the United States just for a day or so, one of the first things they are asked is "Where were you born?" If the answer is, "Well, where I was born is now under the jurisdiction of the Soviet union", we find that Canadian citizens are at times unduly subjected to unnecessary interrogation. I believe that if adequate representations were made by the minister in co-operation with the Secretary of State, that difficulty might be eased somewhat.
Many of those people came to Canada many years before what is now the soviet regime had control over their territory. Because that area is now under soviet domination, these people face hours of interrogation at times. The Americans are rather sensitive, and I take it they want to make very sure that no communist is allowed entry into the United States even for a visit. I think that in those cases where this takes place the officials proceed merely under orders they have received from the authorities in the United States government and they do not mean any ill at all, but it causes considerable irritation in the minds of many Canadians.
A matter I wish to speak on is this problem of whether immigrants cause unemployment.
I think most Canadians might say it has not been proven that immigration causes unemployment. However, I think that depends on what type of immigration we have into Canada. In looking at our Canadian population we see that out of some 15 J million people, some five million are in the Canadian labour force. In other words some two-thirds of our population-67 per cent of Canadians-who are not in employment could be classed as dependents. If we want to show that immigration does not cause unemployment, then I believe the same ratio would also have to apply to our immigrants. However, if we take a look at our statistics we find, for example, that in the year ending March 31, 1953, less than 46 per cent of the immigrants were classed as dependent wives or dependent children. I think the figure for last year is about the same.
I believe that is a clear indication that we are not receiving the average family such as we have in Canada. I think the percentage of single people entering Canada looking for immediate employment is far out of line. I often wonder whether these immigrants have no wives and children, and how it is that often much more than half our immigrant population seeks and obtains direct
|Mr. Regier.l

employment. I think the possible origin of this wrong percentage stems from the fact that it seems to be the policy of the government to lay down rules and regulations under which immigrants may come to Canada if they wish.
I feel that is a wrong attitude to take.
I think our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, with his cabinet colleagues, should decide on what immigrants the Canadian economy needs and then should actively pursue a course to see to it that we obtain these immigrants. They should not merely lay down rules and regulations and have a staff of civil servants administer them and leave it to the employers in Canada. Often employers look for immigrant labour because they can for a limited time obtain that labour at lower wage rates. I agree that we need a greater population in Canada, but I am also convinced that it is up to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to make sure we do obtain the immigrants we wish.
The hon. member for Prince Albert mentioned possible immigration into Canada from Israel. I understand that there are almost three-quarters of a million displaced persons immediately outside Israel. If we need more people in Canada, and I agree that we do,
I sometimes wonder whether such a wealthy nation as Canada could not undertake such measures to relieve some of the serious tension that exists there. We all know that when the state of Israel was formed, roughly three-quarters of a million people of Hebrew origin flooded into that state. At the same time almost the same number of natives of Israel left the land and are today, and have been for years, looked after by the United Nations. The Arabic nations around the borders of Israel do not want these people to become permanent residents, and the state of Israel, naturally enough, does not want the people of Arabic origin to re-enter Israel and become settled there.
When I look at the table for the year I previously mentioned I notice that in that year we admitted 4,539 immigrants of Hebrew origin. People of Syrian origin are listed as 184. People of Arabic origin are listed as 70. When there is a camp-a future trouble spot-with three-quarters of a million displaced persons, and from those displaced persons as well as the four or five nations around Israel we admitted only 254, I hardly think we are doing everything we might do.
My main reason for rising in this discussion of the first immigration item in the estimates was to protest immigration policy in regard to citizens of India. I believe the same would apply to citizens of one or two other nations

near India. I believe we have an agreement with the government of India and one with the government of Ceylon-and, I think, with one or two other similar nations-whereby we set a limit on the number of immigrants Canada will take. We do not set such a limit on other regions of the world, even on some of the other coloured regions of the world.
I feel that the continuance of this quota arrangement is not in the best interests of our nation. I agree that no matter how wide we opened the door to orientals or to immigration from India we would not ease the severe overpopulation and economic hardships over there. However, by the very fact that we have a quota we are showing racial discrimination. Whether we are prepared to admit it or not, it is nothing short of racial discrimination, and it is keenly resented by these people. I realize that the quotas may have been agreed to by the governments of those countries, but we have quite a few of those people living within our nation. They are showing themselves to be good citizens, and they deeply resent this racial discrimination.
Then, I do not like the harsh interpretation of the immigration laws and the way they are being applied to relatives of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin. I think we are being unduly afraid lest there enter Canada in any one year 100 or 200 Chinese more than we are obliged to admit. I think we are being overly cautious. I would not think that a great catastrophe would happen to Canada if one citizen of China was able to enter the country and settle in each of our ridings, or a total of 265 who, under our present system of law enforcement with regard to the Immigration Act, would not be allowed in. I think we are being overly cautious and that we are asking far too much of a people who have never followed the type of record keeping that we follow and who have the most difficult time in producing evidence.
I do not feel very happy about the great authority given to officers of the immigration department. I realize-and I believe the minister said this last year-that the minister must rely on the word of an immigration officer because the immigration officer is, after all, the only one who has a chance to see the applicant and decide whether or not the applicant would make a good Canadian citizen. However, I should like to point out to the minister the great temptations that are placed in the way of these civil servants. We hear rumours from so many places around the world that we cannot dismiss them lightly. I should not be too greatly surprised if, one of these days, one member of the House of Commons is going to be
6, 1955	3533
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration able to produce some evidence of the temptation to which these immigration officers are exposed.
I think maybe one of the causes of temptation is to be found in an advertisement for posting in the civil service of Canada, in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The minister is here hoping to obtain medical officers. He is asking that they be graduates of a medical school of recognized standing, with a licence to practise medicine in any one province of Canada. They must have completed one general rotating internship. Various other qualifications are attached. I notice that the salary offered is $6,600 to $7,200 a year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think this matter concerns my department in any way whatsoever. If the hon. gentleman will look again I think he will find that is so. To the best of my knowledge we do not engage doctors.


Erhart Regier: I thank the minister for his interruption. I notice that the advertisement says "Department of National Health and Welfare". However, may I say this. If that is the scale on which we pay our doctors and other qualified men who must be relied upon to carry out their obligations with the utmost integrity, then I am not too much surprised that so many of these rumours reach our offices.
I am not very happy-and I hope the minister will be able to explain the matter- about the process of screening for political affiliation that is now taking place. Shortly after the war I believe the department was extremely careful not to admit into Canada people who had nazi or fascist sympathies. I hope that situation obtains even now. I also hope there is the closest screening for people who might have communist tendencies or a faith in communism. It seems to me that, with regard to certain areas of the world from which we take immigrants, there are instances where the area of the world is more important than the matter of the possible political sympathies of the would-be immigrant. I have heard the statement made-and I think there may be some reason for it having been made-that a would-be immigrant from southern Italy, for example, is obliged to face practically no interrogation as to his political sympathies. We know that southern Italy has people who had great leanings both toward communism and towards fascism. I hope the minister will satisfy the nation that we are not letting in those people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can clear up that point at once. There is absolutely no foundation
3534	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration for the hon. gentleman's statement. The same care is taken in that area that is taken anywhere else.


Erhart Regier: I am pleased to have the minister's denial. I hope he will elaborate just a little bit further at a later time and outline to the committee exactly what he means by "the same care". I think the Canadian people are becoming a little bit alarmed, and that they would like to know just what the same care consists of.
In ending my few remarks I want to emphasize once again the point that, if we want immigrants to come to Canada-and I admit that we want them-it should be the policy of the department of immigration not only to set down the rules and regulations but to see to it that we obtain the type of immigrants we want in this land of ours. We should not leave it up to would-be employers to decide who is to enter our country.


Mr. Churchill:: Catching the chairman's eye has involved much greater physical activity this afternoon than I had counted on, and I am happy to have achieved my object. My remarks are going to be along a somewhat different line. I have a question or two to ask on policy in connection with immigration, but I think I shall save them until we come to the immigration branch, to which I think the minister quite wisely has been wanting to get.
What I have to say now concerns in a general way the value the House of Commons is receiving from the work of the estimates committee. I am not going over the debate we had in the house on that matter. I am just offering some suggestions. For example, at page 426 of the report of the estimates committee, considering the estimates of the department of immigration- and this is to be found in proceedings No. 14-the minister used these words:
I imagine that it would not be reasonable to ask the committee of supply to consider this department until the proceedings of this committee are all printed, because it would not be fair to the members who are not here, and it would not save the time that we wished to save by this procedure.
Quite right. This department did not come before the committee of supply until the proceedings were printed. But here is my objection, Mr. Chairman. If the committee on estimates is going to be continued another session I think those who take cognizance of these matters should consider very carefully some method of making it possible for interested members to find in the reports of the proceedings what items have been discussed. I spent a considerable length of time in endeavouring to locate in these various volumes the answers with respect to


a problem in which I am particularly interested, and it was like searching for a needle in a haystack. I knew the number of the item I wanted to find, but how do you find it in 14 volumes of proceedings?
It surely will be necessary for some index to be put at the front of these volumes. Surely it will be necessary to print in a heading the number of the vote being considered and the title of the vote, just as is done in Hansard. For example, when we started the consideration of this department the following information was set out at page 3290 of Hansard of April 29:
Department of Citizenship and Immigration
59. Departmental administration, $493,651.
You cannot find anything like that in the reports of the proceedings of the estimates committee. I shall give three examples. At the second line on page 293 of the reports of the committee the chairman said:
We are on items 66 and 68 of the estimates.
A member of the house who was not a member of the committee has to look at the estimates book to see what is dealt with by these items. If you look at page 385 you find in the second line that the chairman said:
We are on the items numbered 70 to 80 inclusive in the estimates of the Indian affairs branch.
Suppose a member was interested in item No. 74 under "welfare of Indians, operation and maintenance"; how would he locate it? Well, you find it at page 409 of the proceedings of the committee, about 20 lines down from the top of the page where the chairman says:
Now, gentlemen, we are on "welfare of Indians", the first item 74, "operation and maintenance".
If we are to gain anything by the work of the estimates committee when that committee reports back to the house, the reports of the proceedings of the committee should in some way make it possible for members to find quickly where items were discussed in that committee and the topics that were considered. If the items were set out in that way and could be referred to rather easily I would think a minister might be saved some effort in making his replies here. It might even be a minister who is more reticent and somewhat less loquacious than the hon. gentleman who is responsible for this department, but I make this suggestion as an aid to the minister concerned who might say that the question the hon. member was raising could be found answered completely at such and such a page in the proceedings of the estimates committee, and that he had nothing further to add. The converse is also true. Later I intend to suggest that at such and such a page of the proceedings of the committee the minister's answer to a certain

question raised there was not complete and needs to be elaborated on this occasion.
I quite freely offer these suggestions to those in charge of preparing documents for the use of members of the House of Commons. I hope they will endeavour to prepare something for the future that will make it much easier for members of the house and others interested in these topics to find the information they would like to have.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Citizenship-
60. Citizenship registration branch, $226,598.
Daniel Roland Michener: I understood the minister to say at our last session that we would go on with immigration first, but we are taking item 60, are we?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. member must have misunderstood me. I wanted to take the items in the order they appear in the book.


Daniel Roland Michener: Very good. Item No. 60 deals with the registration of Canadian citizens, which is basically a federal matter and not, like immigration, a matter of divided jurisdiction. We had considerable discussion in the committee, and I do not propose to dwell on the point I wish to make; but I think perhaps hon. members would be interested in knowing something about the magnitude of the problem of registration as it appears to be developing.
I appreciate that not many of the 1,200,000 immigrants who have come to Canada since the war have yet been registered as citizens, and of course there are many who are not qualified yet because five years' residence is a basic requirement. The number who have received certificates in the past few years is in the neighbourhood of 20,000 a year. I believe the number last year was 23,000. That includes Canadians and others who have obtained certificates just to prove what my friend was worrying about a few minutes ago, as well as others who are granted citizenship certificates on application through the regular procedures laid down by the department.
Those procedures are settled by the department under authority which is fairly broad. Basically the county court system has been used for the purpose of hearing applicants for citizenship and to find out whether or not they are qualified to receive their certificates.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but as it is five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.
Small Loans Act SMALL LOANS ACT



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE COST OF LOANS

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 304, to amend the Small Loans Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for a reduction in the maximum interest rate that may be charged by small loans companies in Canada from 2 per cent per month to 1 per cent per month. It is now 16 years since parliament dealt with the interest rates that may be charged by small loans companies. In 1939 parliament placed the present ceiling of 2 per cent per month for the first 15-month period of the loan on interest rates that may be charged by small loans companies, and reduced the rate to 1 per cent per month after the initial 15-month period has elapsed.
The purpose of the bill is to reduce the 2 per cent maximum to 1 per cent and make the maximum ceiling 1 per cent per month for the whole period over which the loan may be repaid.
The interest today, as I said, is 2 per cent per month or 24 per cent per year. I believe that just stating that maximum should itself be almost sufficient to convince members of this house that this rate is too high. I suggest that 24 per cent per year is a fantastically high rate of interest, and it is certainly monstrous that Canadians who have to obtain small loans should be forced to pay such a very high and exorbitant interest rate.
From time to time one reads of the high interest rates that prevail in many countries in Asia and Africa. We read of interest rates prevailing there of 24 or 25 per cent per year and up to 50 per cent per year. Our reaction to reading that such a thing does occur is, is it not wonderful to live in Canada where we do not have to pay such high interest rates? The fact is, however, that hundreds of thousands of Canadians are continuously paying interest rates of 24 per cent per year, and in many instances interest rates very much higher than 24 per cent.
I intend to have something to say about those much higher rates when on a later occasion I move a bill standing in my name which deals with interest rates. I will, however, say to the house at this time that there are prominent business firms in Canada today, some of our biggest, that are charging interest rates on instalment buying up to as high as 54 per cent per year. When we speak, therefore, of the exorbitant rates prevailing in certain countries of Asia and Africa we should not be horrified, because such rates are currently being charged in Canada.

Small Loans Act
Over the years I believe the trend has been to reduce interest rates. It has been the more or less consistent policy of the government in power to endeavour to get the rate of interest down, and make credit and money more easily available. We now have a prevailing rate of interest on government bonds in the neighbourhood of 3 per cent, and in all instances I believe less than 4 per cent. The large sums of money that are now lent under the National Housing Act are being lent at a total interest rate of 5-25 per cent per year. The interest rate charged under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, about which I shall have something to say later, is 5 per cent per year. The regular rate of interest charged to people who borrow various sums of money from the banks is generally in the neighbourhood of 5 or 6 per cent.
Surely it is the job of members of parliament to study the Small Loans Act and the legislation pertaining to small loans companies and their practices, to see if we cannot do something to reduce the maximum of 24 per cent per year, which is four times as high as the interest rate charged on most loans obtained from our banking institutions. Members of this house should bear in mind that the people of Canada who accept loans from these small loans companies are, by and large, the people least able to afford such a high rate of interest. The job of government should be to make the rates that apply on loans to low income people as nearly as possible comparable to the rates that may be charged to people who are considered better risks. No matter what argument may be advanced as to the difference that must prevail in the rates, I suggest that the wide difference between the 6 per cent on ordinary bank loans and the 24 per cent on small loans is a drastic difference about which parliament should do something.
This is not the first time the C.C.F. party has advocated such a reduction in interest rates. As a matter of fact, when the legislation now on the statute books was introduced and passed by parliament in 1939 an amendment was moved and seconded by the present hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Their amendment asked that the maximum rate be reduced from 2 per cent per month to 1 per cent per month, as is provided in this bill. It went even farther and asked that the 1 per cent rate which prevails after the loan exceeds a period of 15 months be reduced to one-half of 1 per cent per month.
In the hope that this legislation might be more acceptable to all members of the house I decided that it might not be wise at this

time to advocate that the 1 per cent be reduced to one-half of 1 per cent after 15 months, even though such a move might be desirable. I felt rather that the bill should be confined to something so reasonable that all members in all parts of the house could give it their full support. I want to point out that the credit unions in Canada are lending very large sums of money to their membership at a rate of 1 per cent per month. They are doing that successfully. They are covering all their expenses, and are able to declare a saving from time to time.
I should like to quote a short paragraph from an article written in the Canadian Unionist entitled "Desjardins States his Philosophy", by Ralph S. Staples, president of the Co-operative Union of Canada. This article, as is suggested by the title, deals in the main with the Desjardins philosophy and the great contribution he made to public life in Canada by promoting and fostering the original credit unions of this nation. The paragraph reads as follows:
Already there are nearly 4,000 credit unions in Canada, with about 1-5 million members holding assets of about half a billion dollars and loaning well over $200 million to their members each year. The number of credit unions and the scope of their operations is growing rapidly. Only five years before, in 1948, credit unions numbered 2,600 and the membership was 850,600.
As I say, the credit unions have operated successfully on an interest rate of 1 per cent per month, and I suggest to members of the house that such a ceiling is indeed reasonable. I believe that the provision of credit is very important to any progressive nation, and that much of our prosperity at any given time depends upon Canadians being able to meet their credit needs readily and at reasonable interest rates.
Most of the loans that are obtained from the small loans companies, I suggest, are obtained for good purposes. They are obtained by the mother or father of a family, usually for the purchase of needed clothing, furniture for the home or in other instances to meet bills of an emergency nature.
Someone may say, "Well, these people should not be obtaining credit". But I suggest that in practice the average Canadian uses credit as a means of making a saving. That is, he obtains at one time a reasonable sum of money for the purchase of a given article, and arranges to repay the loan in instalments. At the end of the period of the loan he has made a saving, as represented by the article purchased when the loan was obtained. I suggest that the refrigerators, pianos, electric stoves, chesterfield suites and main items of household furniture in the majority of the homes in Canada have been obtained on some basis of credit-perhaps

through a loan from a small loans company or, in other instances, by being purchased on a credit or instalment basis. And I believe that kind of practice should not be frowned upon. It is going to go on in any case, because people on low incomes are going to have to go without many of these items unless they can obtain reasonable credit.
That being the situation, I should like to see this legislation enacted, whereby such loans could be obtained at reasonable rates. As a matter of fact the kind of interest legislation we have in our nation today is class legislation. There are high interest rates for the low income groups and low interest rates for the high income groups. I am not suggesting that those rates can be equalized, but I do say that the difference in those rates at the present time is far too great. We should attempt to bring them closer together by reducing the maximum rates that may be charged by small loans companies.
Present legislation makes provision for a maximum loan of $500. I might have placed another section in the bill which would have increased the ceiling on what might be termed a small loan. I think if such provision were in the bill it would be a good one, because I would like to see the $500 ceiling greatly increased. It should be increased from $500 to shall we say $1,200, if it is to be kept in the same general terms as the 1939 act from the standpoint of purchasing power. Perhaps it should be $1,500, because even $1,500 in 1955 in many instances will buy very little more than could be bought for $500 when the legislation was enacted in 1939.
But even this, I suggest, is not going far enough. Perhaps the ceiling should be placed as high as $3,500, and I do not pick this amount at random. Rather I take it from section 75 of the Bank Act, which now provides that a bank may lend up to $3,500 and take security by way of a chattel mortgage. I suggest if it is found, for the purposes of the small loans departments of chartered banks, that a figure of $3,500 is reasonable, then in legislation of this kind, designed to keep interest rates down to a reasonable level, we might consider increasing the ceiling on the so-called small loan to at least $1,500. I would go so far as to say that it might be preferable to bring the amount up to $3,500, as is provided in the Bank Act.
The small loans business in Canada has become more and more important over the years. I have some figures here that will demonstrate just what rapid growth there has been in the business of small loans. A table showing the interest earned on small loans by small loan companies shows that in 1941 the interest earned amounted to $1,642,000, that in 50433-224
Small Loans Act
1946 it had increased to $2,926,000, that in 1949, three years later, it had increased to $8,173,000 and that in 1953, the last year for which figures are available, the interest earned on loans by small loans companies in Canada amounted to $16,099,000, or an increase of 900 per cent within a period of 12 years.
These figures not only show the rapid growth of our Canadian economy, but show also that the growth of the small loans business has even exceeded the general expansion. The fact that the small loans business assumes such an important place in the economy of our nation offers a further reason why at this time we should give consideration to a reduction in the maximum interest rates.
To show what large sums are placed out on credit in Canada I have here the Bank of Canada statistical summary for March, 1955, which shows that outstanding in charge accounts at the end of 1954 was a total of $503 million, that instalment credit placed by retailers amounted at that time to $315 million, that instalment credit provided by finance companies amounted to $480 million, and that cash personal loans by chartered banks, small loans companies, licensed moneylenders and credit unions amounted to $665 million, making a total credit of $1,963 million. Without attempting to find out how many loans might be involved, assuming- and this might be far from the actual case- that loans amounted to an average of $1,000 each, we would find that two million persons had credit in one form or another at the end of 1954.
With general credit in such proportions and of such outstanding importance to the whole Canadian economy, I suggest it is wrong that the low income group should have to pay the exorbitant charges made by the small loans companies-charges that very often are higher than those made by our business firms in connection with goods they sell on an instalment basis.
In my judgment the banks have not done all they might in this field. As was demonstrated in evidence before the banking and commerce committee last year, the banks could do much more by way of expanding their small loans departments; and I suggest the government might take certain action to encourage the banks to expand and to cultivate their small loans business. As to why the banks have not been expanding their small loans departments, I suppose it is the easiest thing in the world for them not to do so because much of that business, as it now

Small Loans Act
exists, goes through the small loans companies; and they in turn-and this is shown by the statistics-obtain a good deal of their credit from the banks.
So the banks have the business anyway. They lend the money to the small loans companies, and the small loans companies in turn lend the money out to the ultimate borrowers. Evidence before the banking and commerce committee last year showed that the banks had in loans outstanding to small loans companies the sum of $29,500,000.
I know the argument is going to be made- and it is one of the strong arguments that might be advanced, unless it can be successfully answered-against this bill that if you bring down interest rates, laudable as that objective is, you are going to turn a lot of people who previously could obtain money from small loans companies to the loan sharks, and instead of getting money at 24 per cent a year they will have to pay 50 per cent a year or even more.
I do not think that is a necessary alternative at all. If such a lowering of interest rates may encourage the loan sharks, the government should not let such a fact-if it is a fact, and I do not admit that it is-stop them from passing this bill, because the thing the government needs to do is to take whatever action may be necessary, by passing this and other measures, so that people who are now getting money from small loans companies at 24 per cent will be able to get money at a much lower rate of interest.


Mr. Benidickson:: What are those steps?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am coming to those steps. The legislation which the government has on the statute books today in other fields shows the kind of steps that need to be taken. The National Housing Act is a special act of this parliament with special provisions as far as bank lending is concerned. It encourages the banks to make money available to home owners. I am sure the parliamentary assistant will agree with me that had it not been for the National Housing Act, had it not been for the amendments to the Bank Act that the banks were not asking for-in fact, in some instances were rather reluctant to accept-we would not have the valuable contribution that this legislation is making to our Canadian economy.
Something on which I can speak with greater authority is the success of the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Under that act almost any farmer

perhaps 95 per cent of the farmers of Canada-can go to the bank and obtain money, if he asks for it, for the purchase of farm machinery, for the remodelling of the farm home, for the installation of
[Mr. Argue.!
electricity, for the buying of better cattle, for the purchase of good seed, almost anything that will improve the farm as an operating unit, or improve his home, at an interest rate of 5 per cent.
Mr. 3enidickson: On the security of the farm.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no, not on the security of the farm; on the security of the machine that is purchased, that is all, and the personal reputation and honesty of the farmer who goes into the bank to do business. But as far as the bank is concerned there is a further guarantee from the government. The government and the people of Canada will stand behind those loans to the extent of 10 per cent of the aggregate amount of the loans in case of loss. What has happened? Has it cost the federal government tremendous sums of money? It has cost the federal government practically nothing. I suggest that without this legislation the farmers of Canada would be facing the same interest rates that are now charged by small loans companies.
The government's guarantee under the Farm Improvement Loans Act has been in effect for quite a number of years. A great deal of money has been lent under the legislation. The number of loans since 1945 have totalled 415,000, amounting to $451 million. The government has had to pay to the banks on account of losses the relatively tiny sum of $92,000 on just 175 claims. Someone behind me reminds me that they are still collecting some of that money, so even that loss on the loans covered may subsequently be reduced.
What is the cost to the government in the aggregate loss, compared with the amount of the loans? It is -02 per cent, or 1/500 part of the original government guarantee of 10 per cent of the aggregate amount of the loans. I suggest that without such a guarantee, which has cost the public of Canada over this long period of time much less than $100,000, the farmers of Canada would have had to pay many millions more in interest charges than they have had to pay because of this legislation.
Therefore I suggest to the government that they bring in another act-and they might call it the family welfare improvement act, an act to encourage banks to expand the legitimate small loans business that some of them are now providing-designed to make available to Canadian consumers generally the kind of credit at a reasonable rate of interest on which they are now forced to pay interest charges of 24 per cent a year.
MAY e, 1955
I am one who has great faith in the honesty and integrity of the vast majority of Canadian people. I believe that if such an act were backed by a guarantee by the federal government, perhaps similar to the guarantee under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the experience would be precisely the same, namely that the loss the government would have to pay would be very insignificant indeed. Such an act would provide great assistance to-and I repeat-the majority of families in this country who today are buying on the instalment plan or buying on credit through the small loans companies.
Since I have proposed this legislation I have been surprised to find out just how many people and how many households of this country buy on the instalment plan. I know many instances of men who may be earning such high salaries as $6,000, $8,000, $10,000 or more a year who are buying goods on the instalment plan. In many instances people who one would expect to know precisely the rate of interest they are paying are not aware of it until it is pointed out to them wdiat a tremendous rate of interest they really are paying.


Daniel Roland Michener: He pays his taxes on the instalment plan.


Hazen Robert Argue: That may be so. Because the need is so great and the cost to the government would be so small, I am suggesting that not only should they pass such an act, but they should bring in legislation that would provide a satisfactory alternative method of obtaining credit at a maximum rate of 12 per cent-yes, I would say that should be the very maximum-and if possible steps should be taken to get the interest rates reduced even further.
I know the argument is going to be made that the small loans companies have a lot of losses and they must have a huge interest rate in order to pay those losses. It will be claimed that there are so many dishonest Canadians, you know, and they have to repossess things and lose money. Well the small loans companies lose practically nothing. The main company in the small loans business in Canada makes the boast- and I am glad that they can make it-that they have yet to make their first repossession.
A table placed before the banking and commerce committee last year shows that for the period ending December 31, 1952, the reserve for bad debts of small loans companies, out of a total interest charged by those companies of 23-42 per cent, amounted to -26 per cent. So one-quarter of 1 per cent is all that the small loans companies have 5043.3-224*
Small Loans Act
set aside for that purpose. But their operating profit was 9-35 per cent, a very neat profit. It stands as a blot on our nation, when you think of the hard-working people who are pennypinching to pay this exorbitant interest rate so the small loans companies before our banking and commerce committee can set forth the fact that their operating profit before income tax amounted to 9-35 per cent.
At the same time there was placed on the record a table of the operational costs of the Canadian Bank of Commerce small loans department. That has done and is doing a relatively good service for the Canadian people. They were able to make the same kind of small loans in the same field, not at a total interest rate of 23-42 per cent but at 10-43 per cent. They were able to show, after having taken all the losses-which were small -that they had concluded the year with a satisfactory operating profit of 2-48 per cent on the business involved.
I can tell you why the Canadian Bank of Commerce are able to do as well as they have done in this field. It is because they are more efficient than small loans companies. The salaries of the Canadian Bank of Commerce department amounted to 2-81 per cent; those of the four loans companies amounted to 5-68 per cent. So the small loans companies have to have another 2-87 per cent for salaries. For advertising the Canadian Bank of Commerce spent -03 per cent; the small loans companies spent 1-19 per cent. That is the cost of their high pressure advertising; they drag in as many people as possible in order to give them loans at 24 per cent per year. The cost of funds to the Canadian Bank of Commerce was 2-09 per cent; the cost of funds to the small loans companies was 3-07 per cent. That is another place where a saving of -98 per cent could be made.
Of course the field of operating profit is where the largest saving could be made, a saving of 6-87 per cent. If you add up just those few savings I have mentioned-and I have not added the large item called "expenses" and some other items-you find that in this field there could easily be a saving of 11-88 per cent, which would bring the cost of loans down from 23-42 to 11-54 per cent.
The reason the rates are high is that these people make exorbitant profits and spend large sums of money in high pressure advertising in order to get the business through their doors. So I am suggesting to the government that the passage of this bill would not mean, and should not mean, that the Canadian consumer will be placed at the

Small Loans Act
mercy of loan sharks. Last year the government took a step in the right direction by making it possible for banks to accept chattel mortgages as security for moneys they loaned through their small loans departments. The government has already taken a good step by amending the Bank Act to raise the maximum ceiling on these loans to $3,500.
I suggest to the government that they should not stop there, and that once and for all they should get rid of this exorbitant rate of 24 per cent by at least cutting it in half. I do not think any loan company in Canada is worthy of being in the business if it cannot make a reasonable profit at 12 per cent. If it has to get out of the business because it is so inefficient, let it go; good-bye and good riddance. Let the government amend the Bank Act and bring in legislation such as I have suggested, which will give the Canadian people a satisfactory alternative whereby they can get loans at reasonable interest.
When I move my other bill, I intend to go into the even higher rates of interest which are currently being charged in Canada, not by the merchant who operates a small business but by Canada's largest and best known retail firms.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I find some difficulty in speaking after my hon. friend from Assiniboia. I think many of us are finding difficulty in following my hon. friend, because he is usually so efficient and thoroughly covers the matter at hand. My particular interest at this moment, since he has covered the essentials in regard to the rate of interest, is in the methods of advertising that these people practise. We had some discussion not very long ago about the deceptive packaging of bacon, and I was glad that the government took some action in the matter. I can see now the results of that action.
I think the government should take some action too-and I thought it would have been a good idea if my hon. friend from Assiniboia had written into his bill something to that effect-which would prohibit the type of deceptive advertising used by certain vampires of the small loans business. This matter is brought to my attention at the moment by an item in my own local newspaper, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of April 22, 1955, which I quote:
The Co-operative Union of Canada decided in convention Thursday to make representation to the federal government to require finance companies and business organizations to declare to the borrower or the instalment purchaser a total yearly-
The emphasis is mine on the word "yearly". -rate of interest being levied in each transaction. Delegates claimed that the existing practice of

interest charging by the month on small loans and on instalment purchase financing by some companies did not disclose to the borrower or the purchaser the true rate of interest.
There is a footnote, which says:
The Co-operative Union of Canada represents 860 local co-ops and 770,000 members.
As an example of the particular type of thing I mean, I think I might say, without making any derogatory remarks about anybody, that the people who avail themselves of these small loans, or a great many of them, are not accustomed to business methods and business practices. Some of them are rather easy to deceive in that particular matter.
Let me give an example of the type of notice which is very common in our newspapers. Let us assume that we are going to make a loan of $100. We see the advertisement saying "You get $100. You pay at the end of the first month only $9. At the end of the second month you pay only $9." So it goes on down the line till at the end of 12 months you discover-and the advertising emphasizes the word "only" you have only paid $108. Victims of this system have said to me, "That is not an exorbitant rate of interest; that is only 8 per cent". Of course we all know better than that. We know that the borrower has not the use of the $100 for the 12 months. He has the use of the $100 for only one month. Then when you get down to six months he has the use of only half that amount, and so on until you get down to the final month when he discovers-or he does not discover, in many cases-that for the use of one-twelfth of the principal which he has borrowed he is paying exactly the same charge as he paid during the first month. That is what I mean by deceptive advertising, and there is a great deal of it. There are many different types of that same deceptive advertising. The trouble is, of course, that these borrowers do not realize that the principal in their hands has been steadily decreasing while the interest payment is maintained and is constant.
As to the general or larger question which was dealt with by my hon. friend, I agree with him that the government has some responsibility in this matter. I agree that the government should accept some blame for what certain loan sharks are doing. These people are running a perfectly legal and often respectable business, but some of the people I know who have borrowed money from them have been extremely sorry they did so. They are little people, those who least of all can afford to indulge in the luxury of obtaining a loan of that kind. I think the government has some responsibility,

in that since 1939 it has been possible for these interest rates which have been pointed out by my hon. friend to be collected legally, by virtue of an act which allows up to 24 per cent per annum-I think that is the rate-to be charged.
One answer, of course, that one might get to this argument is that these people are fundamentally a poor risk, and that the rate therefore must be extremely high in order to compensate the companies for the losses sustained. Statistics give the lie to that argument. My colleague said that the amount lost amounted to twenty-six one-hundredths of 1 per cent of the yield of the loans. I think he should have stated that this is the amount of the reserve which was set aside by these companies. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the reserve which these companies set aside, on the average and over the years, would be more than the actual loss which it is meant to cover.
Of course, the free enterprise people would say that if these people do not want this type of loan they are not obliged to obtain it. However, may I say that the human element enters into all these things. We have people who need money because of sickness, accident, or the death, if you like, of some one of their relatives; and may I mention death particularly because for most people it is an expensive business to die these days. I suggest that these borrowers get into difficulty. They do not know in what direction to turn. Then suddenly along comes someone who says, "We will give you some money on your own note of hand, no questions asked" and all the rest of it. Of necessity they fall for that type of propaganda.
This business of caveat emptor-let the buyer beware-is part of the law of the jungle. In these enlightened days I suggest that governments should assume some responsibility for the protection of people who do not know how to protect themselves. People who are qualified financially have no difficulty in getting money at reasonable rates-I would say the average is perhaps 6 per cent-from the banks. The banks can now operate small loans departments. They do so at an effective rate of interest about half that which the loan companies charge. Why cannot these latter companies operate at the same rate as that at which the banks operate? That is a question I cannot answer.
This small loans business, as I said, may have assumed an air of respectability, but I do not think that fact makes it any less dangerous. Of course we no longer have the situation prevailing where a woman on Monday morning wraps the clock in her shawl and takes it down to the pawnshop; but I suggest than when she took the clock down
Small Loans Act
to the pawnshop she obtained just as good a deal as she does when she approaches some of these financial advisers, with their plush offices by day and their neon lights by night attracting you in there so that you may borrow some money and be rooked just to that much greater an extent. They call themselves financial consultants, forsooth; and they invite you in to have your many little debts consolidated, in order to get them all in the same place; "the same place", of course, being your name on a note in their office.
The advertisements are screaming at these potential borrowers all the time. All day they are screaming at them to come in and borrow money on their own note of hand, without security. They offer advice by which these people can be induced to borrow money. I do not know whether or not my friend gave the figures, but I obtained them. According to those figures 70 per cent of these people do labouring work, artisans, people working in offices doing clerical and other non-manual work. In other words, they are the poorer-paid people of the country.
I think they should have protection at least to the extent recommended by my hon. friend, and that the interest rate should be reduced from its present legal maximum of 24 per cent to a maximum of 12 per cent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) I think I should say something in reply to the sponsor of this bill.
The Small Loans Act, which was enacted in 1939, resulted largely from the work of the parliamentary committees. This whole problem is something in which members of parliament have taken a good deal of interest. The problem received a great amount of study by the banking and commerce committees in the sessions of 1937 and 1938. This attention was given to the matter because, prior to that time, the banking and commerce committee was being asked to review regularly petitions for the incorporation of a number of individual companies in this field.
There was a great deal of evidence showing that, without regulation and government supervision, some extremely unfortunate circumstances had developed and that a very high rate of interest-much higher than that described by my hon. friend-was being charged in many instances.
As a result of the deliberations of that committee, it is true that a maximum

Small Loans Act
monthly flat rate of 2 per cent for small loans was recommended. Admittedly this rate was considered to be experimental. However, before these committees evidence was taken from representatives in the field in the United States. The parliamentarians had a great deal of experience, as I say, as a result of hearing applications for incorporation of individual companies. This maximum rate of 2 per cent was set, and it has been in existence since 1939.
In 1946 the government introduced an amendment to this act. It was then proposed to reduce the rate to 1J per cent per month. This bill received second reading in the House of Commons and was referred to the banking and commerce committee which gave it some study, but the bill itself was not reported.
It happened that at about this time, between 1945 to 1948, the largest lenders in this small personal loan field had in fact reduced their general rate to borrowers to It per cent. However, about this same time the general costs of doing business in any field were on the rise. In 1948 the lenders generally returned to a rate of about 1| per cent. Since 1950 the general rate, according to the reports that are filed, works out again at about 2 per cent.
I am sure hon. members will be interested in the experience of other countries. As I say, when our legislation was enacted in 1939 and prior thereto, considerable evidence was available as to the experience in the United States. In that country legislation in this field is within the jurisdiction of the states rather than the federal government, so practices and rates vary. However, the maximum rate in most of the states of the United States for loans in this field is 3 per cent per month, and there the ceiling under which the law applies, generally speaking, is even less than ours, being $300 rather than $500.
In Great Britain I understand that at the present time there is no statutory maximum interest rate but the courts place the onus on the borrower to prove that the rate being charged is unfair if the rate is less than 4 per cent per month, and if the rate is more than 4 per cent per month the onus is on the lender to establish that the rate is not unfair.
The main purpose of this small loans legislation is to ensure that lending facilities are available to necessitous persons who have need for small sums of money and are not able to get them from sources used by others. That is why there is a ceiling. At the present time the ceiling is $500. I could not tell from my hon. friend's remarks whether he entirely understood that the

Small Loans Act has no application whatever to time sales of goods. It does not apply to conditional sales agreements, hire-purchase agreements and so on, to which he did make some reference. I assume he did so by way of reference to the other bill he has on the order paper to amend the Interest Act, which would have a bearing in that type of business.
We are discussing in this bill the application for a loan on a personal note without the element of a business transaction. Experience has shown that only by strict regulation and by providing an adequate rate is it likely that the public will be protected against excessive rates. This was the evidence before the banking and commerce committee in 1937 and 1938. If the maximum rate is too low the result is simply that regulated loans dry up; and it was established, in the opinion of the parliamentary committee, that the loan sharks would be the alternative and would enter the field.
I should like to read to the house a few extracts from the report of the banking and commerce committee of 1938 on this point. At page 424 of that report this was said:
Obviously the state can intervene over rates only within a limited field; for naturally a legislative rate at which money is not obtainable is of doubtful benefit to necessitous people. In the debates over the subject it would almost seem to have been at times forgotten that to legislate a maximum rate is an injunction that, if people cannot borrow at the prescribed rate, they cannot borrow at all.
Again, at page 425 the committee report had this to say:
The rates of the several states-*
Of the United States.
-were presumably established after exhaustive inquiry and, in several instances, after the legislative prescription of lower rates had led to a diminution in the supply of licensed credit with a return of bootlegged loans in volume.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. May I adjourn the debate?
On motion of Mr. Benidickson the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 60. Citizenship registration branch, $226,598.
Daniel Roland Michener: I was referring, Mr. Chairman, to the problem of the registration of

citizens, particularly new citizens, and I had indicated that of the 1,200,000 immigrants who have come to Canada since the war not more than 100,000 have received their citizenship certificates. I should think the number would be substantially less than that. The total number who received their citizenship certificates last year, the biggest year, was some 23,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it was nearly 27,000.


Daniel Roland Michener: I suppose that was taking the calendar year, but even at 27,000 and going back over the last four or five years, it would appear that perhaps not more than
100,000	have received their certificates of citizenship. We have, therefore, immigrants in Canada to the number of 1,100,000 who will be applicants for citizenship certificates in due course. If the present rate of immigration continues, as I hope it will, or increases, that number is not likely to diminish.
When we reach the normal annual number of applications for citizenship it may be in the neighbourhood of at least 100,000 per year. We are taking immigrants at more than that rate. One of my colleagues referred to the possible loss of people who came here with the intention of going to the United States, and that may reduce the number. But in the long run I would think almost as many as enter the country will be applicants for citizenship. The department, therefore, has a problem of substantial proportions in the processing of the applications and the registration of that number of people.
As I said, this problem has been tackled through the county courts. While that machinery may be adequate in most parts of Canada, it certainly has been found to be inadequate in the larger centres of population, Montreal and Toronto particularly. We went over that problem rather carefully in the committee, so I do not propose to dwell on it now. I do want to say I am delighted to see that the difficulty is now being recognized. I know that in my city Toronto there is an entirely new method of processing these applications. We are not relying now on the judicial machinery to handle these applications. I commend that change, and I trust the department is making provision for the fairly substantial numbers that may have to be handled in the future.
I say this because the certificate of citizenship is the great possession of anyone who has adopted this country as his. It gives the franchise; it gives the status. Anyone who has torn up his roots and moved from another country in order to bring his family and establish himself here will not lose any time in getting that certificate; it is the seal of
6. 1955	3543
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration his citizenship. We hope, therefore, that when people apply for these certificates they will get them without delay. It is the delay that exists now, and which is to be met by these new methods, that I wish to draw to the attention of the house. I do so for the purpose of making some reference to the proportions of this problem.
Last year I believe the minister said there were something like 4,000 certificates issued in the York area. We can readily contemplate four or five times that many in a year. If it was a problem to deal with a few thousand, certainly preparations will have to be made to deal with many more thousands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-*
66. Administration of the Immigration Act, $892,756.
Gordon Minto Churchill: This is the item I have been waiting for, and I think the minister has as well, because we want to discuss the problem of immigration. However, I do not propose to take too much time. I have been raising the question of the general policy with regard to immigration for the last three years in the hope that I could get an answer from the minister. I was not able to get one from the present minister's predecessor, so I raise the question now for the minister's benefit.
Earlier this year I drew attention to this problem. I am interested in the racial groupings within the country, and I am interested in knowing what is the policy of the government with regard to retaining the racial groupings we have had in this country from the early days. On other occasions I have pointed out that the percentage of people who trace their origin to the British Isles has been declining. I have drawn the attention of the house to the fact that in the days of the great immigration into this country, in the first few years of this century, 60 per cent of the immigration came from the British Isles. Over the first 50 years of this century, 50 per cent of the total number of immigrants entering Canada came from the British Isles.
I point out that I am not thinking of excluding anyone; I am not talking as an exclusionist. There was no exclusion of people of various racial origins in the days of the great migration to this country in the first few years of this century. Yet at that time 60 per cent of the immigrants were from the British Isles. Similarly, I suggest no exclusion now. If we are to have an immigration policy at all and want to attract people to this country, we naturally want to

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration get them from as many places as we can suitably obtain them. I am not objecting to the present policy of the department or its extensive attempts to gain immigrants from the various countries of the world. We have many racial groups represented in Canada, but it is still our duty to look to the future.
Are we, through lack of care or lack of success in attracting immigrants from the British Isles, creating a trend whereby in the course of time the racial groupings within this country will be materially altered? As I said last year, that may be good or bad. I raise the question, but I do not myself say it should be necessary for the government to use any policy to alter the basic racial divisions within this country from what they were 50 years ago or even 20 years ago.
It does not mean excluding other people in order to bring people in from the British Isles. But I noticed from the survey I made -and if my survey is incorrect I presume there are people here who will put me right-an apparent change in policy in 1949. In the half dozen years that have passed since 1949 the average of people coming into this country from the British Isles has been 26 per cent of the total number of immigrants admitted. That is a far cry from the 60 per cent of the first few years of this century, and a far cry from the average, for practically 50 years, of 50 per cent from the British Isles.
What caused the fundamental change in policy in 1949? Why is that policy being continued? Is it an accidental occurrence, or is there any explanation for it? I was not able to get a satisfactory answer to my question a year ago, and when I raised it earlier this year perhaps the minister did not have an opportunity to deal with it. Although I have searched the proceedings of the committee on estimates with some diligence, as I pointed out before five o'clock it is a difficult matter to locate the information in the reports of that committee, due to a lack of index and a lack of paragraphing according to subject matters. Consequently I may have overlooked some discussions on this particular subject.
I did find at pages 294 to 299 of the proceedings of the committee on estimates a discussion of immigration from the United Kingdom. However, I did not see any discussion on the other point I raised, as to the racial or ethnic divisions within Canada.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: You should ask Duncan MacTavish.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not see in the record of proceedings of that committee any declaration on the part of the minister as to the policy of

the government with respect to that particular point. Consequently I raise it again now, in the hope that the minister will be able to enlighten the committee.


Mr. Balcom:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question relating to immigrants coming to Halifax and being transported from there. The immigrants who arrive at Halifax are well looked after by the immigration officials and by the Canadian National Railways. Upon disembarking they receive free food and are looked after by volunteer workers. For the most part they are very happy. In Halifax we have canteens from which they are given food at reasonable prices, prices that are probably a little lower than those in effect generally.
The immigrants stay around the city for some little time, after which they go on the trains and, en route, they have to buy food. My understanding is that this food is not supplied by or under the control of the immigration branch or the Canadian National Railways, but that it is handled by an independent company having that privilege on our regularly scheduled trains.
I question whether it should be done in that way, and whether it would not be better if the railways or the department were to handle this food. I believe the immigrants are charged what might be termed exorbitant prices-for instance, 20 cents for a half pint of milk. And if this applies to milk, it might apply to anything else. These people, many of whom do not understand our language or our money system, resent this. The welcome they receive at the pier in Halifax is somewhat worn off en route to Montreal or some other point in Canada. One can readily see that they might be caused some embarrassment.
I would ask the minister to have his departmental officials look into the matter, with a view to seeing if there is any way of improving the service these people receive. My understanding is that the food they buy on the trains from the company in question is not served in a dining room, but is served right in the coach.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister if he is prepared to reply to my question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. If there are no further questions I am prepared to reply to the junior member for Halifax and to the member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Mr. Lennard:: The member for Winnipeg South Centre and the junior member for Halifax; that is the order in which they were asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand, sir, that we still have, even in this chamber, a little measure of freedom of speech. I am going to reply first to the junior member for Halifax, because I can reply to him in about three words. I shall be delighted to have someone look into that question.
And now, to the very complex question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I can make a very brief reply -and be misunderstood. My brief reply would be to say, and I am going to say it anyway, at the risk of being misunderstood, that to the best of my knowledge this department does not now and never has paid any attention to keeping a racial balance, and I hope it never will.
I thought we engaged in a war, in which the hon. member served very gallantly, that was directed against that kind of thing. Now, it is true that we do give preference, and for many years have given preference, to immigrants from the United Kingdom; and the reason we do it has been stated over and over again. It was stated by me in the debate on immigration, as will be found in Hansard for February 17 at page 1258. I do not know that there is any particular advantage in stating it again but, very briefly, it is this; that we believe that because immigrants from the United Kingdom have the same kind of political institutions we have and, in the main, the same kind of social customs and, in the main, the same kind of economic system and, in the main, the same ways of doing things, it is easier for them to adapt themselves quickly and readily to this country. And, as the hon. member for St. Paul's has said, we do ask immigrants to come here for the purpose of transforming them as quickly as we can into citizens of Canada.
May I suggest it would repay the hon. gentleman if he would reread those few paragraphs in Hansard, which I uttered for the first time in Dauphin in the speech I made to the Manitoba chamber of commerce, and which indicate the basis of this preference or selective system. It is not based upon race, and it is not based upon creed. It is based upon a conception of adaptability to the kind of society we have tried to build in this country in the last 300 years. I am quite confident that when Mr. Mackenzie King said in 1947 that we did not want to make a fundamental change in the character of the population of this country, that was what he meant, and that was all he meant.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I noticed that in his statement the minister seemed to
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration wish to draw an inference that I was suggesting something in the nature of discrimination. I thought that was an unnecessary comment, but not an unexpected one from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I was at pains to point out that there need be no exclusion of immigrants to this country. To my knowledge, or in so far as I understand the problem, there has been no exclusion in the past and I certainly am not suggesting any now. There is nothing very complex about it. I am asking the minister whether he understands that a shift is going on in the racial grouping within this country. He apparently understands that, and says it is not a matter of any great concern.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say any such thing.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, that is what I understood from the minister's remarks and from his quoting of that characteristic confusing statement of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, which certainly does not clarify the situation at the present time at all. I wanted to know why immigration from the British Isles was not equal on a comparative basis to what it had been in the past, not in the same ratio to the total number of immigrants who come to this country. The minister gave no explanation of that.
Let me ask him this while he is thinking over some of these problems, and this is where I refer to the record of the committee on estimates which contains, on page 299, the discussion with regard to immigration from the United Kingdom. It is a most incomplete statement. There I ask, was the answer given elsewhere? Is it to be found somewhere else in the proceedings of the committee? On page 299 of the minutes and proceedings of the committee there is discussion in regard to the difficulties facing people coming from the British Isles in respect to the amount of money they can bring with them. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Kamloops the minister said:
I would be prepared to present a statement on it, but I do not know anything about it at the present time. I do know however that the subject had once been canvassed, but I do not know more than that.
Here are the hon. member's words, which are to be found a little higher up on the same page:
Have we ever considered lending money to immigrants against balances which they have in the United Kingdom?
Perhaps the minister will tell us that the problem was dealt with later in the estimates committee. If not, is he prepared now to make a statement on the result of his

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration research and let us know what are the problems that stand in the way of people coming from the British Isles? We find that they move in large numbers to Australia and apparently are still willing to migrate from the British Isles despite full employment in that country. The pioneering and colonizing tradition of the British Isles is still evident. Why are we not getting greater benefit from that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can say, Mr. Chairman, that this question of loans and quite a number of other possible devices have been considered. Of course there is a loan scheme, as the hon. gentleman, I am sure, knows, for the payment of passage. This question of loans against sterling balances, and a good many other devices of that sort, have been considered from time to time but, as I indicated to the committee-I was looking for the page number, but like the hon. gentleman I cannot find it. I quite agree with him on this point. I do agree that we need an index to these minutes. Perhaps it would not have been quite so difficult to follow them if my suggestion in the committee had been followed, that we take things up in a consecutive order. That seemed rather difficult to get done, just as it seems difficult to do in this committee, but that is just by way of parenthesis. I agree with the hon. gentleman.
I think the relaxations that have been made by the British treasury in the last two years are such that for all but a very rare immigrant the problem of transferring any balances any prospective immigrant is likely to have is now pretty largely solved.
Some point was also made in the estimates committee about the possibility of lending money to the dependents of immigrants for assisted passage. If I could persuade myself that this would really stimulate immigration from the British Isles I would be very happy indeed to recommend to my colleagues that we extend the scheme to the dependents of immigrants; but our experience has been- at least I would say we have deduced from our experience-that in the kind of full employment and the kind of prosperity we have had in this country in recent years, it has taken the immigrant himself such a relatively short time to accumulate enough money to bring his family-and moreover he could pay for their passage in sterling- that there would not have been very much advantage, except for impecunious people, to have loans of this sort, and in many cases even they did not seem to have been much deterred by this difficulty; but I am still quite open to conviction on that point.

I want to see more immigration from the United Kingdom. I would not want anyone to misunderstand my position on that; but fortunately or unfortunately-perhaps I should not use the word "unfortunately"- we cannot conscript people in the United Kingdom to come here. We have to persuade them to come. Happily, in the United Kingdom economic conditions have improved vastly in the last few years, and as a consequence there is less willingness to leave the United Kingdom and come here. This is a matter of grave concern to the department. I would certainly welcome from any source any practical suggestions for increasing the flow.


Mr. Hobinson (Bruce):: I do not wish to provoke the minister, and also I do not wish to pour any coals of fire upon his head. We all agree that in Canada we missed the boat so far as the immigration of Anglo-Saxons is concerned since the end of the last world war. Australia and New Zealand beat us to the punch. I have no axe to grind, but I should like to get some information from the minister. A lot of good immigrants have come over from Britain, and of course there must be more willing to come. The information I want to get from the minister is this. If an immigrant comes to Canada from Britain and gets himself in debt to quite an extent in Canada, then leaves Canada and goes back to Britain, what can be done if he tries to come back to Canada? Can the minister give me any information in that regard?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I did not get the last phrase.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: What can be done to collect the debt the chap contracted if he tries to come back to Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman referring to debts to the crown or to private individuals?


Andrew Ernest Robinson: Private individuals.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think that in this relatively free economy we have in Canada the department has ever set itself up as a debt collection agency for private individuals. I do not think it would be a very good way to stimulate immigration if we did. A debt, after all, is a civil obligation, and I presume that if the immigrant came back within the jurisdiction of the courts here the person to whom he owed the money could take whatever action was necessary for the recovery of the debt. Certainly I do not think we would regard as an impediment to his return to Canada the fact that he had some unpaid debts. I think most people would imagine

that there was a slightly better chance of *collecting them if he did come back to this jurisdiction. The problem is a novel one to me. I have never encountered it before.


Andrew Ernest Robinson: I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that we have encountered those circumstances in our riding. I would think in such a case of a man deliberately incurring debts, if that man ever tried to come back to Canada he should be interrogated and an understanding reached with him. I think it would be very good if the department took that point into consideration and did not let a man of that kind in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
67. Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $10,000 for grants to immigration welfare organizations, $5,648,955.
Mr. Monieith:: With regard to item 67, Mr. Chairman, we had several discussions in the *estimates committee about the fact that in the estimation of certain people, and possibly myself, the department insisted on overestimating its expenditures for several years.
I think we ought to keep in mind that the tax rate which the citizens of Canada finish up by paying is eventually decided by the estimates which are passed by this house. If a certain amount of expenditure can be saved, that means there will be that much less money to raise by taxes.
In questioning officials of the department, including the minister, we came to the conclusion, I think, that in estimating for this current year 1955-1956, on which we are now working, probably the first step taken was to refer to the estimates for 1954-55 and maybe for previous years. I do not think that is quite the correct procedure. I believe more attention should have been paid-if any attention has been paid-to the actual expenditures in prior years.
In the estimates committee certain comparisons were made concerning the immigration branch. It was shown that in the year 1952-53 the department overestimated by over 30 per cent. In the year 1953-54 they overestimated by over 22 per cent of the estimates. Actually, the percentage of the amount expended in 1952-53 was 43 per cent, and in 1953-54 29 per cent. Coming a little closer to the present time, 1954-55, the lapsed vote, shall we say, was 7 [DOT] 3 per cent of the estimate and over 7 * 8 per cent of the actual expenditure.
I think this is a bad procedure to follow.
I do not believe it is fair to the taxpayer. On this particular item, No. 67, I would like to review what has happened over the last two or three years. In the year 1952-53 the
1955	3547
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration estimates were approximately $4,832,000. The actual expenditure was approximately $4,482,000, or a lapsed vote of roughly $350,000. In the year 1953-54 the estimate was $5,204,000; the expenditure was $4,728,000, a lapsed expenditure of over $476,000. In 1952-53 it was 7-8 per cent, and in 1953-54 over 10 per cent. In 1954-55 the estimate was $5,691,000, the expenditure $5,367,000; a lapsed expenditure of $324,000, or over 6 per cent.
Apparently this has been a consistent procedure in the immigration branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I do not think it is correct. I am convinced that this overestimating is not necessary. It has been proven that such has taken place in the past by the figures which are taken from the accounts.
As a consequence I would move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Paul's, that item 67 of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, amounting to $5,648,955, be reduced by 5 per cent, or by the amount of $282,447.75.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, in seconding the motion I should like to say this about overestimating. Although it might appeal to some people as being simply providence to ask for more money than you expect to spend, in other words to leave some room to turn around, there is another aspect to the matter in public finance which is very important. This motion may be more by way of token than of great consequence to the budget, but I suggest that it is worth consideration on this ground. If the practice which has been demonstrated with respect to this item were followed throughout the departments and there were a consistent overestimating of probable expenditures on the part of all departments, the Minister of Finance would be under the onus of raising 10, 15, or as much as 30 per cent more money than would actually be needed in the experience of the departments.
The consequence of that, of course, would be to upset any rational theory of budgeting and finance. The result would be a surplus which was not intended, a surplus which depended on departmental overestimating and underexpenditure, a policy of raising more money than was needed rather than a deliberate reduction of the public debt.
I second the motion with the thought in mind that this practice, if it were general, would be destructive of any sound fiscal policy on the part of the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I of course oppose this motion, and I invite my hon. friends in the house to support me in opposing it.
3548	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Frank Exton Lennard: They will; don't worry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On this particular item, it might be interesting to note that the hon. gentleman very carefully selected the year 1952-53. If he had selected 1951-52 he would have found that the lapsed amount was 2-9 per cent, but he chose instead to begin with the year when it happened to be 7-2 per cent.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, I take exception to what the minister has said. I did not deliberately begin with the year 1952-53.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the floor. In 1952-53 it was 7-2 per cent; in 1953-54 it was 9 per cent. This past year it was about 5 per cent. I do not think it will be more than 5 per cent in the present year. I was going to say that I hoped it would be closer than that, but I do not really hope it will because a certain contingent amount is provided here to pay for deportations, and the fewer deportations we are obliged to pay for, and the more money we can save in that way, the better it will be for the taxpayers.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Monteith) negatived: Yeas, 9; nays, 66.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the motion lost. Shall the item carry?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I was just going to ask the minister whether he would not explain something of the functioning of the people mentioned here. I refer to the field inspectors and so forth. In other words, will he give us a little story telling on what kind of services the money is spent?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to oblige the hon. member for Saskatoon. I am trying to say this without giving any offence. I wonder whether he has read the proceedings of the estimates committee. In those proceedings is given a most minute and detailed explanation. I should be glad to give the hon. member the page reference.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I thank the minister for bringing that fact to my attention. I have not had the time to read the minutes but I shall do so. I shall be quite satisfied with that answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Thank you.


Daniel Roland Michener: One or two aspects of the administration of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that came out in the committee proceedings deserve attention, in


my opinion, at this time. They have to do with the relationship of this department to two other departments. I think this item is perhaps the appropriate one on which to make the point I have in mind.
What we are doing, of course, is voting funds to enable this department to carry on its administration. In doing that I think we should look first at the purpose of the department and, in the second place, the efficiency and economy of its administration. In this item No. 67 provision is made for field and inspectional services. Coming under that provision are 139 special officers whose function is to do the same kind of work as that done by the national employment service of the Department of Labour. That is the first point I want to make. I wish to point out that here we have two departments doing the same job.
What is that job? It is to advise immigrants as to labour conditions in Canada, the work that is available, the opportunities for employment and for farming or business which are available in this country. When we have set up under the Department of Labour a nation-wide system of employment counsel covering every part of Canada and presumably familiar with work conditions and opportunities in every part of Canada, one would think that service would be the appropriate one to supply information to intending immigrants.
It is true that this information must be supplied in their own countries. Therefore I suppose the information which these officers collect must be sent abroad to be delivered to the prospective immigrants in their own countries. But why should this department of immigration have 139 officers in Canada going about the country collecting information which, it seems to me, already is or should be available in the Department of Labour? That is the first conflict between departments that I think deserves the consideration of the government.
Let me point out this fact. In Canada itself we have the labour department and the citizenship and immigration department both collecting this information, whereas abroad we have the immigration department using the information by delivering it to the immigrants.
The other administrative question is the relationship of this department to the Department of National Health and Welfare. Although this department chooses to have its own employment officers, it does not choose to have its own doctors. There is nothing in the vote here to provide for medical inspection of immigrants abroad. That provision appears in the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare.

On referring to the appropriate place in the estimates, Mr. Chairman, you will find that some 315 personnel are to be supplied for immigration purposes by the Department of National Health and Welfare at a cost of $1,151,000, which is properly a part of the expenses of the department of immigration. Purely as an administrative and accounting problem, and as a matter of efficiency, I suggest that the government review this separation of services.
I suggest that the duplication should be reviewed from another viewpoint because, with two departments responsible, the tendency is for neither to take the full responsibility. There is the possibility that you will find the unfortunate immigrant, in places like Toronto or Montreal, being sent from the department of immigration to the Department of Labour in order to find a job, and then being sent back from the Department of Labour to the department of immigration because they both have some responsibility and each can pass the buck to the other. Hence for more reasons than one I suggest that this problem should be reviewed with the idea in mind of putting the labour counselling service under one department and coordinating it in that place.
The question of the productivity of the department is not an easy one to deal with. One can only compare the number on the staff and the number of immigrants brought in. That is a mathematical comparison, and perhaps it does not mean a great deal. Actually the figures the minister gave indicate that five years ago the department was staffed with 2,913 civil servants, after making some adjustments and including Indian affairs which have nothing to do with immigration, compared with a total at the present time of 3,954, or an increase of 1,041 in the staff of the department in five years. That is an increase of more than one-third. In the same period the number of immigrants admitted to the country has not shown the corresponding variation. I believe 1950 was a relatively small year but in 1951, the year of heaviest immigration since the war, 190,000 or more people came to Canada, compared with
154,000	in the last calendar year, 1954.
As I say, I do not put too much weight on these figures because I feel that the problem of the immigration department is probably more difficult today than it was immediately after the war, and is getting more difficult all the time. As has already been said, the great opportunity to get immigrants from the United Kingdom was immediately after the war. At that time would-be immigrants were lined up for six blocks in front of the Liverpool office waiting to come to Canada. The
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration problem then was transportation. The house is aware of the steps taken by the government of Ontario at that time to provide air transportation, but because the problem of transportation was not adequately met at the time by this department that opportunity was allowed to pass. Today we have not the same scope in securing the immigrants we want in this country.
I believe it is a fallacy today to expect immigrants to drop into our lap. They are not hanging in the trees any more, and we have to go after the kind of immigration that meets the requirements of the country. I do not place too much emphasis on the figures, and I do not intend by what I say to try to restrict the department in its expenditures because I feel the problem is more difficult now than it was and that every effort should be made to go to the places where suitable immigrants are available and get them to come here.
We have been lucky in many respects. We have had a good many from the Scandinavian countries, but such immigrants are not now available. We were fortunate in the immigration of the displaced persons. We got very fine immigrants, among them professional people whose training would cost a great deal if it had to be duplicated in this country. A great many people came here who were able to establish their own businesses, and we were fortunate in securing them. We were fortunate in getting the Dutch farmers who came here. They were a fine lot. But these sources are drying up, and we have to work a little harder now. It is only in the spirit of promoting efficient administration that I point out these problems of overlapping and separation of function which have been discovered in the course of the examination of these estimates in the special committee on estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
69. To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for immigrants, including care en route and while awaiting employment, $500,000.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not propose to move any motion at this time, because it is quite obvious what would happen to it; but I think this is the most glaring instance of overestimating to be found in the whole immigration branch or in the whole Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I should like to remind the minister that I did not go back beyond 1952-53 simply because I thought that was far enough to go to show the great discrepancy between actual and estimated expenditure, but if there are figures beyond that point which the minister cares to bring into the picture, that suits me fine.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
However, I would point out that in 1952-53 the estimate was $2,600,000 and the actual expenditure was $311,000. That is an overestimate of over 80 per cent, and involves big figures, not chicken feed. In the year 1953-54 the estimate was $1,500,000 and the expenditure was $98,000. There was an overestimate of $1,401,000 on a $1,500,000 estimate, or over 90 per cent. In the year 1954-55 the estimate was $500,000 and the expenditure $290,000, an overestimate of $210,000, or 42 per cent.
Concerning this year, as I said I do not propose to move any motion because it is obvious what would happen, but I should like to read an extract from the transcript of the proceedings of the estimates committee, which is found on page 320. It reads:


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oi course, I admit at once, Mr. Monteith, that there is some cushion, as you call it, and we admitted that the other day. That is the amount for transportation, $100,000, which we do not expect to spend at all.
Incidentally, that $100,000 is in the $500,000 which is the estimate for this year. To continue with the minister's words:
We do not expect to spend one nickel of that but it was included, as was pointed out to members of the committee, just in case we might find it necessary during the year, because of an abnormal movement or shortage of shipping, to charter shipping or aircraft. I do not think it would be a disaster if that were cut out of the estimates, but it is our intention to use it only for that purpose, if we use it at all. To that extent I plead guilty right off.
May I say that the minister pleads guilty to overtaxing the people of Canada by $100,000 in that one item.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I believe this item covers emergency relief for immigrants. I should like to know if there has been any unusual call upon the fund during recent months. If so, is the immigrant who accepts assistance from the fund required in specific terms to repay the amount?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am most grateful to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris for raising this question. I almost got up and raised it myself. I wish we did not have to spend any of this money for emergency assistance; but in spite of the long debates we have had in the house during this session on the subject of unemployment I am pleased to be able to tell the committee that never at any time during the course of the whole winter have there been 400 people, men, women and children, receiving assistance at the same time from the department, although I have done my best to make it clear that any immigrant who had been in the country less than 12 months and was in need of assistance for himself and his family could receive it without the slightest risk of being considered a


public charge and thereby deportable. Therefore there need have been no apprehension about coming to the department.
I think this indicates that our economy is not in a very shaky condition. It is true that we do make provision for this amount of $500,000. As the hon. member for Perth, indicated, we have that provision there in case we need to charter a ship or aircraft in order to avoid losing some immigrants. There is this provision for assistance if it is needed. I would be very happy to be able to report at the next session that almost none of this money had been spent. I hope none of it is spent, and if none of it is spent I do not think it will be a case of overtaxing the Canadian people.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There was a second part to the question, Mr. Chairman. In the case of immigrants who receive assistance, are they asked for repayment, and if so in what manner?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No undue pressure is exerted at all. We do indicate we would like them to repay if they can, but they are not pursued or hounded or anything of that sort.


Mr. Brooks:: Do you ever get repayment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, we do get some of it sometimes. All these immigrants are self-respecting people who do not want to receive handouts.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Are they sent any definite statement of indebtedness that indicates a certain obligation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed we generally send one letter.


Mr. Montgomery:: The question I should like to ask the minister is this. Supposing immigrants get into difficulty after they are here 12 months, but before they gain a settlement whereby they have a right to look to the municipality in which they are living for aid. In my province that takes three years. Who is going to look after them in the second and third years? Is there any provision for that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The general assumption, sir, is that immigration is of benefit not merely to the federal government but also to the provinces. While we have a special obligation during this first year while the immigrants are finding their feet, as the great majority of them do, we assume that after they find their feet they will be paying provincial taxes and helping to support provincial and local administrations just as the rest of us do, and we feel they ought, after a year, to be entitled to the same kind of local services from the local authorities. It is for that reason

we limit it to a year. I am sure if the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton found that we were giving assistance to immigrants for two or three years, when we do not give it to Canadians, he would complain and so would most other Canadians.


Gage Workman Montgomery: I am not going to swallow that, Mr. Chairman. I asked a question because I know of some cases in which church and other organizations have had to step into the picture. You cannot blame the municipality collecting the taxes if it does not assume the obligation when it is not supporting our own people. These municipalities do not support ordinary Canadians who have not resided in the locality for at least three years. The people must gain a settlement. There is a gap there. I was not trying to embarrass the minister in any way; what I was after was information. I know of one or two cases where people have had to step in and help these immigrants, and I was wondering if in these cases the department ever stepped in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, the department does not.


Mr. Gillis:: I wanted to ask the minister what percentage of the unemployed in Canada today he calculates would have been immigrants within the last five years?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know at all.


Clarence Gillis: There is a camp or a pool near the city of Montreal to which immigrants who cannot find jobs are permitted to go. They receive assistance during the time they are awaiting employment, and there is provision for medical treatment and so forth. What amount of money was spent last year in that connection, and approximately how many people in that category are in that camp at this time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a place at St. Paul l'Ermite, maintained by my colleague the Minister of Labour, but I am afraid I could not answer the hon. gentleman. It is not my responsibility. There are a few immigrants who go there pending employment. The whole establishment is maintained by the Department of Labour and I have not the information.


Clarence Gillis: I feel the minister should have the information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I find that my estimates are quite a job, without taking on my colleague's.


Clarence Gillis: I did not say anything on the main item, but I did make some extended remarks on this subject. I have always contended that you cannot do a good job in
6, 1955	3551
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration immigration unless there is very close liaison with the Department of Labour. The two departments work together on this particular item. The Minister of Labour is not likely to have much information on the subject, because the immigration department sends these people to that camp. The Department of Labour would have to get the number who are in that camp from your department. The Department of Labour cannot send people there. When questioning the labour department I was always led to believe that this particular phase of unemployment in Canada belonged to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It is certainly an indication that your department cannot do effective work in immigration and placing people in this country, unless they work very closely with the Department of Labour.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which we do.


Clarence Gillis: This is the total amount of money required to take care of that particular kind of thing. This half million dollars is part of the cost of maintaining these people in that pool?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir.


Clarence Gillis: It is not?


Mr. Gregg:: No, Mr. Chairman; I interject here because I will be prepared to discuss that on my own estimates. The particular item concerning St. Paul l'Ermite comes under my department. I can assure my hon. friend that the closest liaison is maintained with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as to the people coming in and going out of this hostel. I cannot tell the exact number of guests we have there just now, but it is very small. I think it is something like 15 or 18.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs branch-
70. Administration, $444,602.
John George Diefenbaker: There are a number of questions that arise in connection with this general section, Mr. Chairman, on which I wish to secure from the minister the opinion of his department.
The first has to do with the liability of the Indian for income taxes. One does not have to go back very far-it was toward the latter days of the first great war-to find when income taxes were introduced into the law of this country. It was believed at that time that it was a temporary measure that would be abolished as soon as the war was over. Indeed, that fiction has been carried on pretty well ever since by referring to the act as the Income War Tax Act.
However, in recent years, and certainly I think within the last year or so, the department administering the income tax has been
3552	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration imposing that tax upon Indians in respect of income which was earned outside the reserve, or in respect of any transactions executed beyond the confines of the reserve.
This has been a cause of great alarm, if not indignation, amongst the Indians. They claim, and I think rightly, that under the law, tradition and history and the treaties of the past indicate that at no time was the Indian to be subject to taxation. This was the principle back in 1763, with the royal proclamation of that year, and it was followed year by year after the establishment of responsible government in Canada until very recently.
The fiction upon which it is founded is this. We pay the Indian treaty money in recognition of the fact that he owned this country and still exercises an ownership over it, and that the government, representing the crown, is required to pay a yearly amount in ransom in compensation to the Indians for their rights and in recognition of the sovereignty they at one time enjoyed.
The Indian today is very much aroused over the imposition of income tax upon him, under the circumstances to which I have alluded. The halcyon days of no income tax upon other citizens of Canada have disappeared, but the Indian contends that there is no legal justification for the imposition of income tax upon him. Indeed, representations have been made from time to time by the chiefs to the Indian affairs branch, and the indignation of the chiefs has been intensified by the fact that at no time have successive ministers of Indian affairs been able to point out to them the legal justification for what is being done.
My information from the grand council of the North American Indian brotherhood is that two conferences under the Indian Act took place under my hon. friend's predecessor in office, but that on neither occasion was the minister able to place before the Indians the constitutional authority upon which this taxation is based.
I have the Indian Act before me, and I am familiar with the interpretation that has been placed thereon. I ask the minister if he will explain to the Indians, as clearly as he can, the legal justification in this instance, having regard to the original proclamation that was made immediately after the cessation of French rule in America, and the subsequent treaties. Will he explain how it is that his department has not had a submission made to the courts for the purpose of determining this matter once and for all? If there is liability then let the minister, representing the Indians, make a submission to the courts to determine the question; and if the supreme


court of this country comes to the conclusion that the law does permit the imposition of income tax on the Indian, that will be the end of it. But I believe that so long as the income tax is imposed there will be considerable ill feeling and remonstrance among the tribes.
I am sure another chief, who is sitting in the house at the moment-I am referring to the Minister of Agriculture who, I believe, was honoured a few years ago as Chief Thunderchild-will have received representations-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the minister has no exemption from income tax.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, he is only honorary; and I am only honorary, too. For that reason the rights that flow from proclamations and subsequent treaties do not apply to us. All we have are the prerogatives and privileges, but none of the rights.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the feathers.


John George Diefenbaker: And we do not receive the payment of treaty moneys from year to year.
I suggest in all seriousness that the minister could deal with this subject, which is of greatest concern to the Indians, by the simple procedure of having this question submitted by the Minister of Justice and the law officers of the crown for the consideration and determination of the supreme court.
Then I return once again to a matter that has aroused intense indignation among the Indians. I refer to the use that has been made by the department of section 9 of the Indian Act. This has to do with the preparation of the band list, on the basis of which the question of membership in the band is determined and decided. Section 9 reads as follows:
Within six months after a list has been posted in accordance with section 8 or within three months after the name of a person has been added to or deleted from a band list . . . may, by notice in writing to the registrar, containing a brief statement of the grounds therefor, protest the inclusion, omission, addition, or deletion, as the case may be, of the name of that person.
Then subsection 2 says:
Where a protest is made to the registrar under this section he shall cause an investigation to be made into the matter-
And so on. Quite a number of investigations have been made. The result has been that Indian has been set against Indian within the band membership. A vast amount of ill feeling has been aroused. Gossip and hearsay have taken the place of legal evidence to determine whether or not given individuals

have the right to be on the list, because of the fact that somewhere in the past white blood found its way into the veins of some ancestors.
The result has been a great degree of ill feeling engendered and a belief that unfairness is being done. These cases of unfairness are apparent in the incongruous definitions of what is a white and what is an Indian. I am not going into the particulars of those paradoxical conclusions and decisions, but it is very difficult to understand why a half-blood becomes a white or an Indian, depending upon whether or not the Indian blood is either maternally or paternally inherited.
A large number of investigations have taken place, and I am not going to review those cases except to say that I know of no decisions that have been handed down by the registrar.
I hope no decisions are handed down. I hope this species of emasculated court will not be permitted by the minister to dignify its conclusions as judgments determining the rights of individuals. I hope the minister will find a way whereby, without in any way eluding or circumventing the law, a state of affairs can be brought about which will remove this serious source of grievance.
I have known Indians over the years, since the earliest days in the prairie provinces, going back to the days of Gabriel Dumont, who returned to the area which is now Saskatchewan; I have known of the Indians of the territorial days. They are a people who are intensely loyal, and a people whose patriotic services in two world wars have been beyond words of commendation. They have the right to ask that every consideration be given to their feelings. In this regard they are aroused. They feel that something in the nature of tyrannical administration, affecting their rights and in some cases casting doubt on their ancestry, has been introduced into the law by section 9.
Will the minister not give consideration to obliterating what has been done, or at least assuring us that what has been done will not be continued in the future and that what commissions have been appointed will not render final decisions? I think fairness, justice and equity would be assured if a simple, retroactive declaration were made by law, that those who were resident in the bands several years ago shall be considered to have been regularly constituted members of the bands, thereby putting their descendants in the same position. Something of that kind would certainly bring about a condition under which many cases of injustice, as the Indians see it, would be avoided.
I make this appeal to the minister because I know that since he has taken over his
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration portfolio there has been nothing in the nature of any decision by the registrar. Nothing has been done beyond the hearings by the commissions. For all that he deserves the thanks of the Indians, and I am sure he will receive them. But I do ask him to go one step further and give these people the assurance that their rights will not be subject to periodic challenge based on hearsay and suspicion. One just has to read the evidence given at these commissions-I dignify it by the name of evidence, because I have no other word that would apply; "testimony" might be more applicable-to learn that witnesses come along and give evidence to this effect. They say their grandmother allegedly told somebody else that a third party had a doubtful ancestry.
Well, that kind of thing may be the only testimony available; but when there is the incentive to exaggerate the evidence because of the fact that the more who are removed by such evidence the fewer there will be in the band, and the fewer in the band the more money there will be to distribute, one can understand the forces that motivate the giving of that type of hearsay evidence.
I ask the minister to give reconsideration to this matter, for I have never known the Indians on the western plains to be more aroused than they are at the present time. They are aroused at what they believe to be an injustice, the basis of which they cannot understand. They do not realize the purpose. of the commissions nor the ends to be attained.


Mr. Campbell:: I am hoping that because a committee has been set up to study the estimates we shall not do away entirely with the discussion of a problem as serious as our Indian problem in Canada. I have several thousand Indians in my constituency who are living under deplorable conditions. It is true that conditions have improved a little. I hope the improvement will continue more rapidly.
There has been no discussion of the Indian problem on the floor of the house during this session. At the last session there was very little. During the years of the twentieth parliament a committee was established, composed of a lot of very fine gentlemen and one lady senator. They studied this problem at great length. There was a lot of discussion, and the people of Canada and the members of the House of Commons generally realized that it was a major problem. The Indian Act was revised, and steps were taken to make a start on making conditions easier for the Indians and teaching them a new way of life.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
First I want to say I am not on my feet tonight to make carping criticism of the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. When the present Minister of Finance took over this department he showed a great deal of interest. He gave this problem a great deal of thought. Indians came in and talked to him on many occasions. I will say this for the minister; he won the confidence of the Indians. Any minister who is to properly administer this department must first of all get the Indians to have confidence in him. I am hoping the present minister will do as good a job and be as thoughtful in dealing with the Indians as the present Minister of Finance when he was in that department.
One thing I have learned about the Indian is that he never forgets. If you do him a good turn he will remember it; but if you do him a bad turn, or if you speak hastily at times without giving consideration to what you are saying, you make an enemy instead of a friend.
I did not speak on Indian affairs last session because I had been out of the house for four years. I had lost contact with my Indian friends, and I was not in a position to know what had been done since the new act was proclaimed and the new thinking regarding the whole Indian problem had been adopted. Last summer I did make it my business to go to a number of reserves in my constituency. It was so muddy that I was not able to get to them all, but I found that quite an improvement had taken place.
When I was in the House of Commons in 1945, 1946 and 1947 I emphasized two things. The first was that we had to provide Indians with schools so they could get an education. Schools were built on all the reserves. Another thing I mentioned was the need of hospitals. We have a good hospital in our area that takes good care of the sick Indians. The second thing was housing. Houses have been built for a few of our older Indians.
By the way, the Indians in one particular reserve, the Thundercloud reserve, sent word and asked me to come up and see them. I went. I sent word of the day I would be there. When I got to where the road turned off the highway I 'was met by an Indian who guided me in to the reserve. I am sure if he had not been there to guide me I would not have been able to find my way through the potholes.
I was met and welcomed by the chief of the band. He held my hand for a long time and said, "I think I never see you again. You good friend." I think that repaid me for any little work I have done in connection with Indians. We had a long conference. Most
[Mr. Campbell.!
of the band were there, and a number of suggestions were made by the Indians, who asked me to bring their case before this House of Commons. That is why I am on my feet tonight.
One of the first things I asked them to do was take me to some of the houses in which they were living. Mr. Chairman, I wish all the members of this House of Commons and the people of Canada generally could see the type of houses in which the majority of these Indians are living and the conditions under which they are living. There would be no hesitation whatsoever in giving all the assistance possible to the Indian affairs branch and the minister who is administering that department to make things different, although there have been a few houses built for the older Indians.
Here we have people who for generations had a whole country from which to get their living. Whenever they got hungry they could go out and kill buffalo, deer or antelope, and provide themselves with plenty of food. They could make a shelter, and they could get their clothing from the skins of those animals. Those days are completely gone. The older generation that got its livelihood in that way are completely lost. They do not know how to do any of the kinds of work the white man requests of them. They have absolutely no way of making a living. If it were not for the fact that we have family allowances, and that the old Indians are now getting old age pensions, the Indian affairs branch would either have to feed all those people or let them starve to death; one or the other.
I looked at a number of these houses lived in by the majority of whom I am talking. What kind of houses do they live in? They have gathered a few logs-and not very good logs-they have a wall six or seven feet high, and they have put on an earth roof on which there is very little pitch. Last summer it rained almost continuously for weeks, and for days on end water poured through those roofs on to the people who were in those shacks. I want to warn the department here that if something is not done soon, at least to get roofs that will shelter these people from rain, we are going to have a recurrence of tuberculosis. Neither an Indian nor anybody else can live in that kind of housing and be free from tuberculosis and many other diseases.
I find that this has taken place during the last few years. As I said earlier we have had day schools on these reserves for the last three years. Now we have a generation of boys and girls between 16 and 19 years of age coming out of school who can read and

write but cannot do very much else. In the -village where I live we are not far from three different reserves. In the last two or three falls dozens of young men have come into our district looking for work. What kind of work can they do? They cannot do any work. They do not really know how to do anything. There are jobs. There is a scarcity of farm labour in my constituency, and in my district particularly.
The white farmers do not hire these boys. Why? Because they cannot drive a truck, they cannot handle a combine, they cannot handle a tractor. Today we have mechanized farming, and unless these young men have some kind of training in operating these machines I do not know what is going to become of them. They are going to become a charge on our people. They are going to become a group of tramps. I think something should be done to provide these boys with some kind of help to learn how to do things.
I had a conference with some of the officials of the department yesterday or the day before, and I made the suggestion that some kind of technical training should be given these boys. I am not proposing that the government or the department set up a large technical training scheme. I do not think it would be practical and I do not think it would work. It would be costly, and it might be a complete failure. But I do think that the department could have a few mobile units- a van with a mechanic and a carpenter- which would spend perhaps two or three weeks on each reserve and then move on. We could see next year what progress they had made.
As I have stated, these Indians need homes. That is one of the first things they need. They have no idea how to set about building a wooden house. If they could get some training so that even a few of them could get started, it would be of great benefit. It does not take a very clever carpenter to build a house. Nearly anybody with average intelligence, after working with a carpenter for a few weeks, could learn how to build a house. A mechanic could give some basic training in practical mechanical matters.
Some of the reserves are getting a few tractors, and a few of the Indians on these reserves are getting a small number of old trucks. I have not seen any good trucks; I have seen a number of trucks which are barely hanging together as I passed through on the road. When the trucks broke down they were not able to repair them. One of the reasons these trucks broke down is that these people did not know how to operate them or
6, 1955
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration take care of them. That is a suggestion. I think that some practical beginning has to be made along these lines.
I do not know what they are going to do about the girls. The girls are in this position, that they are leaving home. When they come out of school a few of them have been taken into the Indian hospital in North Battleford and have received training. Some of them have lived in the hospital for two or three years. They have learned how to cook with an electric stove, and they have had frigi-daires. They have had nice rooms and clean beds and have been well dressed. They meet young Indians and decide to get married. Then you are up against a serious problem. When they get married they just go back to the reserve and live in one of these shacks.
The day I was on one of the reserves there was a very clean, well dressed, nice looking girl. She had spent three or four years in the hospital and had that training, and she had married an Indian and gone back to one of these houses, about which I am talking, to live with the parents. There is not much hope for the girls, as far as I can see, until we get the boys trained so they can earn a living and are able to build a decent house to which to take their wives. This is a problem to which I have given much thought and about which I have been very much concerned.
When I was reading the reports of the estimates committee, in report No. 14, at page 413, I found a statement that made me feel badly. This was a statement by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. The committee were discussing housing, and the item in question was to provide a sum of money to build houses for these Indians who could not afford to pay for them themselves. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre said:
I should like to make it clear that I think it is fine to build these houses if you are going to try to make the Indian pay it back over a period of years, like any other citizen, but for the life of me I cannot understand why we build homes for Indians-1 do not care how destitute they are- unless we try to get some of the money back.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I felt badly about that statement. I hope the hon. member did not really mean it. I hope there are no other members in the House of Commons who have the same idea. I want to make this promise to the minister. As far as I am concerned, and as far as this group are concerned, we will give him every encouragement not only to build houses but to do as much as possible for the Indians who are in the desperate condition most of us know about.
I want to cut short what I was going to say; nevertheless I want to make one or two
3556	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration more suggestions. One of the questions the Indians discussed with me was the difficulty they had in getting meat. I said to them, "Can you not get any deer, moose or anything like that?" They said, "The trouble with us is this. When the season is open for deer, while it is true there are deer in this country the white men come out by the hundreds, and we are afraid to go out in the bush while the white men are hunting. If you could just get the government to give us one day or perhaps two days so we could get some meat for ourselves, we would appreciate it. We do not hunt for sport. When we go out, we go in order to try to get some meat." I said, "That is a provincial matter, but I will draw it to the attention of the government and ask if they cannot make some arrangement with the provincial government to give the Indians that privilege."
Shortly after that discussion I came across an article in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of February 11, 1955, which illustrates this point clearly. It is headed "Disgraced" and it reads as follows:
Saskatchewan hunters must look upon the 1954 game bag with mixed emotions. True, they carried home more than one million ducks and more than 20,000 deer, as well as much other game. But they can scarcely be proud of the fact that 13 hunters died from wounds and that 39 others suffered nonfatal injuries. Such sombre statistics are indeed cause for reflection.
Other figures should cause not a few red faces. Apart from human and legitimate game targets, hunters' bullets found their marks in 19 cattle, three calves, six horses, one goat, several gasoline drums, a combine, a car and a truck. Some of the shots which did this damage were fired deliberately and _ criminally. Others were fired in thoughtless stupidity. Hunters must accept public ridicule for such acts and vow to reform, or they must accept the doubtful reputation of being anything but keen-eyed. As such they disgrace their prehistoric ancestors, who lived by taking careful and unerring aim.
Mr. Chairman, the committee has listened to me patiently. I know the minister is in a hurry to get through. I am therefore going to curtail my remarks. However, I want to assure the minister that even though I am sitting on the opposition benches, if there is anything I can do to help to solve this problem he can count on my support.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words on this item. During the first two parliaments that I sat in this chamber I had many Indians in my constituency. Then there was a redistribution and I lost the Indians but I never seemed to lose contact with them.
Before I say the few words I wish to say, may I assure the minister that I do not rise with any animosity toward him, the department or anybody else. I am like the hon.


member for The Battlefords; if I can do anything at all to help in solving this Indian problem I shall be only too pleased to do it.
When the minister replies-and he does not need to do so until he is ready-I should like to know how many more houses have been built at Norway House since the last time I represented the constituency. I might assure the minister that I am going there this summer. I have made arrangements to go this summer to Cross Lake, and Norway House, when the house finishes its work. I should like to know about the hospital stations. I had some trouble getting to see them but I got there anyway, and I saw how they were working. I thought they were a credit to the department.
In about 1949 the department of Indian affairs sent four Indian nurses to New Zealand to be trained as midwives. What happened to them? Did they come back? Where are they working today, or have they gone into the ranks of the married? In the veterans affairs committee I asked questions about our Indian soldier settlers. I obtained the information that in Manitoba there are 78 such settlers. I should like to know from the minister what progress they have made. Have they their farms half paid for yet, or is the interest going to beat them? What is the situation there? The minister can either drop me a note and tell me about that matter or he can tell me when he is answering the other questions.
The hon. member for The Battlefords spoke about vocational training. I think that is a wonderful thing. My experience in the north country has been that when you teach the Indian something he does not forget it. He is also quick to learn. At Norway House there was a young Indian-I think he was about 18 or 19 years old-who could slab logs better than any white man I ever saw. Unfortunately that boy was drowned, but there will be more like him there.
I did some visiting in some of the houses there. In one of the houses I visited there were parts of two outboard motors lying around. I do not know how many pieces there were, but to me there looked to be about 30 or 40. I asked the young chap there what he was going to do with them. He said he was going to make one engine out of two. I served a good apprenticeship on the river Clyde, building boats, engines and so forth, and I thought he had quite a job in hand. But two days later I saw him coming up the Nelson river with the two engines made into one. He had done a wonderful job. I might tell you that the only tools he had were a pair of pliers and a soldering bolt.

I therefore say this. Do not have any hesitation about this vocational training. I do not know just how it can be done, but there must be plenty of brains in the Indian affairs department which can devise ways and means to bring this vocational training to these young men.
What has happened since we brought health services to the Indians? Let us go back to when I came to this house first in 1943. Conditions among the Indians then were deplorable. The death rate was very high on some of the reserves. That situation has been remedied by the services the Indian department has rendered, but you have a bigger problem on your hands now than you ever had before because the Indians are not dying in such numbers. There are gradually becoming more of them, and you have to face the problem whether you are going to make the Indians wards of the government for all time to come or whether you are going to put them on an equal basis with white men.
The Indians were the original settlers of this country, and I think we should try to get them straightened out before we have more Indians than white people. I want to ask the minister one more question. Why does Manitoba only get a grant of $250 for fairs while Alberta and Saskatchewan get more? I do not like to see Manitoba discriminated against in these matters. I am not going to take any more time, because maybe somebody else wants to say something.


Mr. Blackmore:: I have no desire to hold up the proceedings tonight. I have been deeply interested in all that has been said up to the present time. There is no doubt that most of the Indians are in a very deplorable situation economically and that they face a yet more deplorable situation if unemployment develops as it appears it is going to develop and they become unable to obtain the employment which they have been obtaining during the last few years. I ask hon. members to imagine the state they will be in. I thought I should like to have the minister give us some idea of what he has in mind in connection with the various problems which have been so well indicated by those who have already spoken. Could the minister talk to us a while about this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before I attempt to do that, perhaps I might anticipate the hour and ask if the committee would give its indulgence for a very few minutes after ten o'clock. I am informed there is a real prospect of finishing if we could have that indulgence.
I shall make my remarks very brief. With respect to the specific questions asked by the hon. member for Selkirk, perhaps he would,
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration as he rather indicated, let me give the answers on another occasion, because they involve a little research.


William Scottie Bryce: Don't forget. That is all I ask.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I have a fair memory, and I can assure the hon. member for Selkirk that if there is one province-well, with one possible exception-I would not want to discriminate against, it is Manitoba.
I thought the remarks made by the hon. member for The Battlefords and the hon. member for Selkirk were most constructive. There is no doubt that the very excellent work done in recent years by the Department of National Health and Welfare in eradicating disease among the Indians and improving their general health has, as several hon. members have indicated, created a very serious problem.
The traditional way of life of many of the Indians, especially in the northern part of the country, cannot be pursued by all those who are growing up now. I feel pretty sure that education and the kind of housing which will make it possible for them to profit by education are, as the hon. member for The Battlefords indicated, the two real keys to this problem. We are deeply concerned about the problem of technical education and the best and most practical way of accomplishing it. I could continue at considerable length about this matter, and on another occasion I shall be very happy to do so, but perhaps just saying what I have said is almost enough.
In my view these are the two key things, and the more closely the education of the Indians is integrated with the education of the rest of the population the sooner the Indians will be able to live with the rest of us on equal terms, compete on equal terms and become indistinguishable from other Canadian citizens. That, it seems to me, should be our ultimate goal. By that I do not mean to suggest for one minute-I have been warned about this-that anyone has the slightest thought of taking away from the Indians any of their treaty rights, traditional rights, or anything they feel especially belongs to them, or of using any form of compulsion whatsoever to make them change faster than they are willing to change. I think the task is to try to persuade them that by changing, by improving, by becoming educated, they will have a better way of life. This is not going to be easy.
One thing I appreciated very much in what was said by the hon. member for The Battlefords was the tribute he paid to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. It is true. In my very limited experience of visiting
3558	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration reserves I have found that the Minister of Finance did gain the confidence of the Indians all over the country, and I can assure the hon. member that he set a very high standard for me when he said he hoped I would do as well. So do I.


Daniel Roland Michener: Because they do not pay any taxes.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to extend the discussion of this subject at any length, but I should like to mention one or two points arising out of my observation of the situation in respect of the Indians in the area from which I come. I remember visiting one of the Indian villages during last summer. I made some comment to the chief, who was showing me around, that the children looked to be quite healthy. I still remember clearly the gleam that came into his eye when he pointed out to me that for the first time within his memory, and he was not a young man, the population of his little tribal group was on the increase instead of the reverse being true.
I also had the opportunity of visiting two or three of the schools, and I must say I was very pleased with the type of buildings and the equipment that appeared to be available in schools in fairly isolated locations. Certainly to my way of thinking they compared quite favourably with the general public schools of that district on the coast of British Columbia.
There is one matter of policy on which I should like a word of clarification from the minister, if he is in a position to give it. It has to do with a subject on which he only touched in his recent remarks, the question of when our Indians become full citizens of the country. Perhaps I might put the question in the form of a riddle. When is a fisherman not a fisherman on the coast of British Columbia? I suggest that possibly the answer to that might be, when he is an Indian.


Mr. Pouliot:: Or when he does not catch fish.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The reason I have put the matter in that way is that I should like to know first of all whether there is a policy and, if so, what is the policy with respect to the construction of certain works in connection with fishing operations and that sort of thing in the coastal areas of British Columbia? About a year ago I had occasion to look into a proposal for providing certain facilities which fishermen need for tying up their boats and so on. I must say that a very thorough investigation was made of the project, but I shall not go into any of the details. I discovered that in this particular case if the


project had been proceeded with it would have been constructed by the federal department of works, but that the funds would have come from the money provided for the Indian affairs branch.
On the other hand I know of other instances, and I can mention one example, where that was not the case. There is an item appearing in the details on page 498 of the estimates book, under public works, harbours and rivers engineering branch, which provides for breakwater repairs at a location which is definitely in Indian territory.
I should like to know whether there is any general policy in respect to where the line is drawn, or whether the policy is perhaps made on an ad hoc basis. I should like to know whether this matter has been discussed among the Indian affairs branch, the Department of Public Works and possibly, as I suggested, the Department of Fisheries. Is there any real policy in respect of that, or is it something that has not been clarified? If there is a policy, could the minister tell us briefly what that policy has been or is likely to be?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a question to which I should really like to give consideration before answering. If the hon. gentleman would not mind letting me give the answer at a later time, I shall undertake to do that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That would be quite satisfactory to me, Mr. Chairman. It is something that I feel would be useful to know in the event of other matters coming to my attention or that of the other members who live in coastal areas in which these problems are apt to arise.


Mr. Herridge:: I am going to be quite brief, Mr. Chairman, so I do not want you to look glumly at me. I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that I have one Indian and one reserve in my constituency. I am speaking now of the sole survivor of the Arrow Lake band and the Arrow Lake Indian reserve. It is a small reserve in a very beautiful spot on the lake. I am just bringing this to the minister's attention, and asking if it is possible for a few other families to be brought in to utilize that beautiful reserve on a lovely bay with a sandy beach. There may be a possibility of bringing some other Kootenay Indians in there so they could enjoy the facilities, and continue the reserve as the Arrow Lake reserve. I just bring that to his attention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall have a look at the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Education-
78.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $8,521,245.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There are a few brief comments I want to make on this item. I have listened carefully to everything that has been said thus far in this discussion. I would agree that this item concerning education is crucial in everything that has taken place here this evening. I appreciated the information that was revealed in our discussions in the estimates committee on this topic of Indian affairs. It was also encouraging to note the minister's emphasis then, and again tonight, on the need to gradually move away from paternalism by gradually breaking down the segregation of our Indian population.
In this connection I would say that education is fundamentally important. It seems to me that the emphasis on establishing day schools on the reserves rather than depending upon residential schools is important in this whole process. During the Easter recess I took the opportunity of visiting two reserves in my own constituency to see the sort of activity that was taking place out there. I am glad to see this move toward establishing schools on the reserves, and I would merely say that I hope the educational program carried on there will be just as broad as possible under the circumstances. I hope it can include the adult population as well as the juvenile population, because an adult education program goes hand in hand with breaking down this segregation.
Finally there is the matter of coeducation which is also proceeding; that is, the mixing of white and Indian children in the same schools. I investigated the situation in my own city of Brandon, and I found that the superintendent of education is very keen about this coeducational program. He is anxious to promote it just as far as is possible. However, he had one small complaint. He finds there are not sufficient students of high school age arriving at the local residential school to incorporate into the city high school program. There was a feeling this might arise as a result of a certain misunderstanding and difference of interpretation between the local superintendent of schools and the superintendent of Indian schools.
In summing up, I would say I do agree that we are moving in the right direction in connection with this problem. If what we have on paper is vigorously implemented in the years that lie ahead, we will gradually work toward the desired goal of uniting the Indians with the general population.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration National gallery of Canada-
81.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including industrial design division, $250,808.
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask the minister if these items from here to the end of his estimates were considered by the estimates committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, we spent one whole session on them, and they were quite fully discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
82.	Payment to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art, in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, $130,000.
Jay Waldo Monteith: I have just a short comment on this item. I do not want to hold up the committee at all, but I should like to say that these cash accounts, as they are called, are quite confusing both to the house and to the general public. For instance, it was intimated in the estimates of 1952-53 that the estimates totalled $406,000. Actually the amount spent was roughly $108,000 out of this purchase account; that was just the amount spent, and this actually was charged up in the estimates. Conversely, in the year 1953-54 there was $490,000 in the estimates and the amount spent was $699. My only point in bringing this to the attention of the house is that I do not think the estimates as they are presently drawn give a true picture of the estimates and expenditures.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps the minister made great bargains in buying paintings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to think that the gallery had, but I have not done the buying myself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Harris moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: On Monday we shall begin with the second reading of the bill respecting unemployment insurance. I understand it is going to a committee for study. After second reading is given we shall revert to the budget debate.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.12 p.m.
3560	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
[The following Items were passed in committee Indian agencies- of supply]:	71. Operation and maintenance, $2,321,336.
72.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, department of citizenship and immigration	land and new equipment, $576,448.
A-Department-
59.	Departmental administration, $493,651. Citizenship-
60.	Citizenship registration branch, $226,598.
61.	Citizenship branch, $725,323.
Miscellaneous grants-
62.	Canadian general council of the Boy Scouts association, $15,000.
63.	Canadian council of the Girl Guides association, $12,000.
64.	Boys' Clubs of Canada, $10,000.
65.	Canadian Writers' Foundation, $4,000.
Immigration branch-
66.	Administration of the Immigration Act, $892,756.
67.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $10,000 for grants to immigration welfare organizations, $5,648,955.
68.	Field and inspectional service, abroad, $1,832,494.
69.	To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for Immigrants, including care ,en route and while awaiting employment, $500,000.
Indian affairs branch-
70.	Administration, $444,602.
Reserves and trusts-
73.	Operation and maintenance, $257,676.
Welfare of Indians-
74.	Operation and maintenance, $2,315,021.
75.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,022,865.
76.	Grants to agricultural exhibitions and Indian fairs, $7,350.
77.	Fur conservation, $332,155.
Education-
78. Administration, operation and maintenance, $8,521,245.
79.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $3,927,900.
80.	Grant to provide additional services to Indians of British Columbia, $100,000.
B-National gallery of Canada-
81. Administration, operation and maintenance, including industrial design division, $250,808.
82.	Payment to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art, in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, $130,000.
83.	Grant to Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, $4,025.

Monday, May 9, 1955