1955-04-29

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.
Second report of special committee on veterans affairs.-Mr. Tucker.
Second report of standing committee on privileges and elections.-Mr. McWilliam.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public
Works) moved:
That items numbered 510 to 535 inclusive, 550 and 551 of the main estimates 1955-56, relating to the Department of Veterans Affairs, approved and reported upon this day by the special committee on estimates, be referred back to the committee of supply.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has his attention been directed to an editorial in the Ensign of April 30 with reference to the international truce commission in Indo-China? Is he in a position to report whether or not, in consequence of communist treachery, the commission is unable to operate? In particular, in view of the fact that the cut-off date is the 18th of May, does the minister consider that anything can be done to extend the date to the end that some two million people in the northern part of Viet Nam will be given the opportunity to leave if they choose to do so?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question which concerns a matter that is causing a good deal of anxiety not only to our representatives on the commission and the government but also to many people in this country. I have seen the report to which he refers and, indeed, other reports, and have had communications concerning this subject.
With the hon. member's permission, and in view of the widespread interest in the matter, I will make a short statement about it on Monday when I hope to be in a better position to do so.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT AS TO FINAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received a telegram from the Saskatchewan farmers' union requesting an announcement of the amount of the final payment so that merchants will be in a position to extend credit for spring seeding? What action does the minister propose to take as a result of this request?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not received such a telegram from the Saskatchewan farmers' union and I am informed that none has been received in the office of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There have, of course, been a number of requests both in this house and from others for an early announcement of the final payment on the 1953-54 wheat crop.
A similar question was asked in the house a few days ago, at which time I said that preparations were being made to close out the 1953-54 wheat pool as at the end of April and that payment will begin when the necessary accounting and auditing has been completed, which will be about two or three weeks later. It is, of course, impossible to announce the amount of the final payment until these calculations are completed.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Would the Acting Postmaster General comment on any improvement in the postal service as the result of the elimination of Pouliot from its operations in Temiscouata?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Postmaster General):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to think of a funny reply.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



CANADIAN FORCES IN KOREA-CONTINUING COMMITMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he is yet in a position to make the statement which he indicated three or four days ago he would soon make, regarding Canada's position with respect to the continuing commitment which we may accept for the stationing of troops in Korea.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not yet in a position to make a statement but I hope to be early next week.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question? I wonder if I might ask the minister if he and the government would not agree with the suggestion that it would be unfortunate if Canada at this time, in the light of the tension which is mounting in that area, were to indicate that she is considering cutting the size of her forces for that area?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Any comment I might have, I shall keep until I make a statement.



REPORTED CLOSING OF NOVA SCOTIA MINE- REQUEST TO CALL MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he is considering the possibility of calling a meeting with company and provincial government representatives and the miners union in connection with the closing of No. 1-B colliery at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I had a meeting with Premier Hicks the day before yesterday, and we are to have another meeting on Saturday. I asked Premier Hicks to call to the meeting anyone he thought would be interested. I do not know who are coming.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry that I did not send him notice of the question, but I do not believe he will need it. My question is this: Is the dominion government going ahead

with the construction of a dam on the South Saskatchewan river at a place known as The Narrows, 30 miles northeast of Medicine Hat?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I have heard nothing official at all, Mr. Speaker, with regard to a dam at The Narrows north of Medicine Hat. I understand that there has been some discussion in the press in Medicine Hat concerning the possibility of a dam in which it has been suggested that the site has been surveyed by P.F.R.A. That is not correct; P.F.R.A. has had nothing to do with it whatever, and knows nothing about it.


John George Diefenbaker: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the house regarding negotiations he had with Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan at the conference concerning the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project, and what further proof does the government require before considering the commencement of this work?
Righi Hon. L. S. St, Laurent (Prime Minister): To deal with the last part of the question first, I would say that I do not know that it is proof that is required, but the government has not yet been able to determine whether it would take the responsibility of recommending to parliament the very substantial expenditure for this project as one of national interest to the whole country. It was discussed very frankly with Premier Douglas yesterday and his minister of finance, Mr. Fines, and the result was that it was still a matter that was under consideration; that all parties were, I think, as fully advised as they could be of any accurate information now available bearing on the project; and that there would be nothing to be gained by trying to discuss the details of the apportionment of costs until the prior decision had been made, that it was a project that warranted the heavy expenditure it required and that the time was appropriate to proceed with it. We had a long, frank and interesting discussion. I think we considered, or at least touched upon, the important factors that have a bearing upon it.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question? Was the Minister of Agriculture present at this conference?


Mr. St. Laurent:: He was, as was the
federal Minister of Finance.
Mr. Cold well: May I ask a supplementary question, because I am often asked about it in my own constituency? I understand the

matter has to rest until the government is satisfied that this work is a work in the interests of all Canada; is that right?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Until the government
takes the responsibility of coming to parliament and recommending it as a project that will provide for the economy of Canada more than its cost would take out of the economy of Canada.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF BASIS OF PROCEDURE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I would have directed this question to the Prime Minister yesterday had he been here at the opening of the sitting. In view of the fact that the decisions which are made will of necessity be ultimately decisions by parliament, the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference are of great concern to parliament. Can the Prime Minister make any report to the house which would enlighten us beyond the statement given following the closed session succeeding the open session on the first day? I would suggest that review of the basis upon which the government hopes to proceed in certain respects would be helpful to all of us in considering what may be done in connection with this matter and any discussion which should take place.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to go beyond the terms of the communique which we discussed at considerable length, Mr. Speaker, and about which it was frequently commented that since we had proceeded in camera the discussions should not be reported. It is not that I wish to withhold from parliament any information. The communique indicates that there was a discussion of-I will not say "offer" or "proposal" of the federal government because those words were objected to by others attending on the ground that there was nothing complete that could be regarded as an "offer" or as a "proposal"-a suggestion that I put before the meeting on the first day when it was an open public meeting.
It was quite evident, and no one questioned it, that we did not have accurate information that would permit of the establishment of an exact formula. It was decided an endeavour would be made, in the most expeditious manner, to secure that information. It was for that reason a committee was suggested to be made up of the representatives-I do not know that they are all of welfare departments-but on behalf of the welfare department of each of the provinces and
Inquiries of the Ministry representatives of the federal government, to review all the data available and try to get the basis for a formula. It was felt the committee should endeavour to do that with such expedition as would not delay a decision upon it until the October meeting.
The committee would proceed at once, and I understand that they had a preliminary meeting yesterday morning. It was hoped that they might have made sufficient progress to make it practicable to have a meeting of the ministers undertake a study as early as possible-one suggestion had been as early as possible in June and others preferred that the words "in June" be left out. I just mention that as indicating what was meant approximately by "as early as possible". The suggestion was that it might be appropriate to have action taken by legislative bodies, so that if some kind of arrangement were worked out there would be nothing to prevent its being implemented from the early fall onward. I do not know that there is anything more that I can say, without violating the letter, if not the real spirit of the various statements that were made-that we had proceeded in camera, and that our discussions should conserve that character.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Without in any way suggesting that there would be any breach of the confidential character of the discussions, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the fact that the government has withdrawn its position from that which it stated it was prepared to take in 1945 in regard to the unemployed, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if there are any other specific proposals in the 1945 proposals not yet dealt with from which the government has withdrawn its support. I ask this question because I think it would be helpful in avoiding any unnecessary discussion if there are any other similar cases where the government has withdrawn from the position it took at that time.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I cannot accept the word "withdrawn". There were proposals made as over-all proposals in 1945. They were not accepted. I stated at the opening meeting of this preliminary conference that we did not consider that the proposals that had been made and were not accepted at that time were a proper basis for an agenda of discussions at this time.
There have been a great many things done, not because they were in the proposals but because they were considered to be the right things to do-things done since 1945. But the government does not consider that it is bound in any way by unaccepted proposals that were made in 1945.
3288	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: May I ask the
Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is it not true that the green book proposals in 1945 were offered to the provinces with the intention and the expression that they would be implemented when the majority of provinces accepted? There was no attempt to limit the provinces at that time.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member has the green book proposals and he can read and interpret them as he considers they should be read and interpreted. But I do not think it would be proper for me to try to put an official interpretation upon them in this house.
[Later:1


George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask a supplementary question on the same subject matter as that to which we have been referring, and which follows as a result of the question that followed mine. In view of the fact that we have been from time to time referring to these proposals from both sides of the house, I should like to ask the Prime Minister to whom we can look for a correct interpretation of what is described as the green book if we cannot look to him for that interpretation.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I think the best place to look is in the green book itself-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -in which can be found exactly how those proposals were put forth.


George Alexander Drew: Then do I take it that the Prime Minister has withdrawn his earlier statement, and that the green book still stands as the proposals that he could accept?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If there were manifested to us a disposition of all the provincial governments to accept-


An hon. Member:: All?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I think so, because I think they are all concerned-of course there is a varying degree of the importance that has to attach, because of the size of the population, to the views of the people of Ontario and the views of the people of Prince Edward Island, for instance. But it must not be forgotten-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that an interpretation of the green book and, if it is not, what is it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, it is not an interpretation of the green book. It is a statement of facts which are real and which have their bearing upon the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments. And I think it should not be overlooked that the federal government has no funds of its own. The federal government


has funds that are raised from the people of Canada; and when one speaks of what the federal government should do one is speaking of what should be done on behalf of all of the people of Canada, for one or more parts of the people of Canada; there are not at the present time before the provincial governments, for acceptance or for refusal, the proposals that had been made in 1945.
And I will be perfectly open and frank that, had those proposals been accepted, the federal government, as representing all the people of Canada, would find it at the present time pretty embarrassing to carry out the commitments that would have resulted. Because at that time those proposals were based upon the assumption that $250 million per annum being raised from the people of Canada would be quite sufficient for the defence expenditures of this country. And at the present time the members of this government and, I am sure, a large proportion of the Canadian people, recognize as having the highest priority of all, the expenditures that have to be properly made to do our share of the building up of the defence forces that are apt to be sufficient to deter aggression.
That being the case, I doubt if there are very many in Canada who would feel that it would be proper for the government of Canada to raise more money than is now being raised by increasing taxes.
Now, there may be the suggestion that there could be economies. We are endeavouring to practise economies; but they would be a very small proportion of the total budget that has to be met-not out of the moneys of the government of Canada but out of the moneys raised from the people of Canada generally. And that being the case, there has to be an order of priorities established in respect of the purposes to which the moneys provided annually by the people of Canada can be applied.
It will be suggested that there might be capital investments that could be made without being raised out of the year's current revenues. And that may be possible; but that could only be for such capital investments as would ultimately bring to the Canadian economy more than it would be presently taking out of the Canadian economy.
That is the situation that we have to face, and we might as well be realistic about it. We were perhaps overoptimistic about what could be done in 1945. At the present time-


Mr. Ferguson:: That was the year of the election, was it not?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I am not considering it from the -point of view of the results

of an election; and I think that it is preferable, in the interests of the people of Canada, that these serious matters be considered in another light than in the light of elections. When the hon. gentleman is sitting in the chair before which I am standing at the present time perhaps he will feel otherwise about the responsibility of those who are responsible to the public.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister? In view of his statement as to the greater weight that attaches to the views of the government of Ontario than attaches to that of some of the smaller provinces of the country, will he say that in view of what happened on Tuesday and Wednesday we are now closer to a nation-wide health insurance program than we were at the beginning of this week?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know how much closer we are to a nation-wide health program than we were before Tuesday and Wednesday, but very close attention is being given to the cost of that kind of a program. The hon. gentleman may say that people in Canada are spending as much without it as would be spent under it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, assuming they are; but will the hon. gentleman tell us that there should be discriminatory taxation put upon those who are making these expenditures at the present time, or would he not consider that the costs, though they might not total very much more, would have to be spread generally by rates of taxation over the whole Canadian public?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Am I permitted to answer questions on the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker? If so, I would be glad to answer the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: May I submit that perhaps on this phase of the discussion we have gone beyond the limits which are usually permitted at this stage, which must consist of only asking questions. That territory has been quite amply covered. There will be other opportunities to discuss these various matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister allow a question arising out of the statement he just made, that in order to bring in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have just asked the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to refrain from pursuing a discussion on that particular point. Perhaps I can ask the hon. member for Prince Albert to wait until another opportunity is offered in order to pursue the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question without reference to anything that has been said. In connection with the plan for unemployment that was submitted to the dominion-provincial conference as representing the point of view of the government of Canada, will that plan not come into effect unless accepted by all the provinces, or may it be accepted by one or two provinces and not by the others?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: Well, there has been no consideration given to the matter of whether it would be accepted by one or two and not by the others. It is a plan which is put forward in an effort to try not to distinguish between persons in need who might be considered by some as employable and by others as unemployable, and to have the same authorities dealing with all those in need regardless of whether they should be considered as employable or unemployable. It has not reached the point yet where an answer could be given to the hon. gentleman's question. That would depend upon the feeling of those attending the conference and representing all the provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the dominion's attitude?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The dominion's attitude is that it would like to see a system established and administered by local authorities which would avoid the situation which has existed of saying this is one's responsibility and that is another's responsibility; to try to remove the inconvenience to the individual resulting from diverging views about the question of responsibility and have a concrete formula that where there was real need help would be extended, and that it would not be the concern of the applicant as to who was going to provide ultimately what was paid to help him or in what proportion.



EXPORTS OF LEAD, ZINC AND CRUDE OIL FROM CANADA TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister advise the house what action may have been taken by the foreign affairs committee of the United States Senate in regard to certain amendments to the reciprocal trade act submitted to that body which, if passed, would have had an adverse effect upon the production and importation of lead, zinc and crude oil from Canada?
3290	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think any final action has yet been taken, but I will look into the matter and see if I can make a reply on Monday.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Perhaps he would take it as notice and reply later. Does the minister know that the personnel of the Levis office of the unemployment insurance commission has been considerably increased lately? If so, what was the purpose of such increase?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I will take the question as notice, and try to answer on Monday.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce? In view of the fact that Toronto, Montreal and other eastern cities are to have the advantages of natural gas in the near future, would the minister care to state when Winnipeg and other western cities may expect the same advantage?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the question would have to be in much more specific terms before I could give an answer that would be useful.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I am sorry I did not give him notice of this question. Is the government giving consideration to placing an additional icebreaker in service at the port of Churchill during the coming shipping season?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I may say that we have given some consideration to the matter but so far as I can recall there is no icebreaker that
[Mr. Nickle.l

would be available in Hudson bay itself. I have had some discussions with the Hudson bay association, and I am hoping that we shall be able to work out something that will satisfy their needs.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 59. Departmental administration, $493,651.


The Chairman:: May I point out to hon.
members that this resolution will be found at page 12 of the main estimates, and the details will be found on page 142. Shall this resolution carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister going to make a statement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do want to say
one or two words, Mr. Chairman. As the members of this committee know, these estimates have all been considered at some length and in some detail in the new committee that was established for the first time this year, namely, the committee on estimates. It was the hope and expectation of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, which he expressed in this house when the committee was set up, that one of the advantages of having the committee would be that a lot of the discussion on detail which had formerly taken place in the house would take place upstairs. Now, I believe that did happen, and the verbatim proceedings have been published and are available to all hon. members. It would be my intention, sir, if it met with the wishes of the committee, where a question was repeated here that had already been asked upstairs, simply to draw attention to the answer in the proceedings, with a view to saving time, and I am sure that would be equally convenient for purposes of reference.
In view of the fact that there has been such detailed consideration of the estimates elsewhere, I had not thought of making any statement about the work of the department.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, as the minister has said, the estimates of this department were the first to be referred to the new committee on estimates which was set up during this session. It is my expectation, and it will probably be found, that the very extensive consideration given to the estimates there will result in the saving of time in the committee of supply. However, I would not be prepared to go quite so far as the minister has indicated he would wish to see done in

each case; that is, that where a question is raised here which was discussed in that committee, the matter might be left, so far as he is concerned, by merely referring us to the page number at which the discussion in the committee will be found. It is my view rather that while the review of the department's estimates which was carried out in the committee will be productive of a saving of time of this committee of supply with respect to matters of detail, and that is where I personally would expect to see the greatest saving of time here, nevertheless, where for instance in the special committee on estimates some matter of departmental administration of major concern involving the practices and policies of the department with respect to administration was raised and was the subject of considerable attention, I do not consider it is sufficient to deal with it here simply by saying that it was discussed in the estimates committee and hon. members will find it at page so-and-so of the proceedings.
My feeling on the matter, and I express only a personal opinion but I think it is a pattern which logically we might hope to have developed, is that the discussion or repetition, shall I say, of details with respect to expenditures would be avoided but that discussion of important matters of administration might be carried on here in, if I may use the expression, a somewhat more apposite manner as a result of the discussions which we have had upstairs, but not that they would be sidetracked by simply saying that they had been discussed already.
Coming then to the estimates themselves, I am not going to follow what has sometimes been the practice on the part of the opposition of making extended criticisms of departmental administrative practices on the first item for the reason that we have had that already in the committee, but I do feel bound to observe that the report of the special committee contented itself by saying:
Your committee has considered and approved items numbered 59 to 83 inclusive, listed in the main estimates 1955-5S relating to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, referred to it by the house on February 22, 1955.
A copy of the proceedings of the committee in respect thereof is appended.
We of the official opposition do not regard that report as being an adequate reflection or summary of the considerations of the committee. We believe that there should have been more detailed findings and recommendations reported by that committee to the house as a result of the evidence which came out in the committee and as a result of the attitude of the minister and his supporters 50433-2084
29, 1955	3291
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in the committee with respect to our demands for information as to how this department was administered.
I am not going to rehearse, even in general let alone in detail, all the deliberations of the committee and the various controversies which took place there. They are to be found in the proceedings and I think they are pretty well known to the house and the country through the press, through the proceedings and through other media. However, I shall endeavour to summarize what were in our view the main features which were established by the work of that committee.
First, in spite of the minister's apparent readiness to answer questions which were directed to him, and in some cases to have his officials answer questions with respect to details of administration, to a large extent that was camouflage under which the committee, even though it asked really searching questions, was unable to acquire important information as to some aspects of the administration of the department. That denial was achieved in part by the limitation imposed on the committee by its terms of reference and in part by the attitude of the minister himself when suggestions as to the calling of witnesses, the production of documents and so on were made.
The attitude of the minister in those cases was that these requests should not be complied with. After he had had himself made a member of the committee he was in a position to give a very powerful lead to his supporters with the result that on several occasions perfectly proper suggestions for the obtaining of important information as to the affairs of this department were denied, either by a ruling of the chairman which was sustained by the government majority or by a straight vote of the government majority on the motion itself.
I make this statement here that this committee was not in our view granted an opportunity of an effective and unfettered inquiry into the administrative practices of this department which we had hoped would take place after the committee was set up. To that extent the report of the committee which I read a few moments ago is not an accurate reflection of the information which this house should have on the practices and policies of this department.
We are dissatisfied, and I submit that the country is dissatisfied today as it was at the beginning of this session and as it has been over the past several years, with the state of affairs in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. That dissatisfaction found its most immediate and pointed expression in recent years in the resolutions and
3292	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration reports which were passed at the Canadian Bar Association convention in Winnipeg last year. We ourselves expressed our criticism of the policies and the administration of the department and indicated our own views of what should be the policy with respect to immigration in the debate which took place shortly after the beginning of the session. I shall not refer further to that debate except to say that the views we expressed at that time are unchanged by anything we have learned since. Our views are to a large extent confirmed by our inability to obtain information to which we felt we had a right.
This feeling and the facts upon which it was based we attempted to summarize-I am speaking now for the official opposition -in three amendments which we moved in the committee at its last session when it was considering its report to the house. I am going to ask the indulgence of the committee to read these amendments in full because in my view they represent what the committee should have found and reported to the house as the basis upon which the house itself might then expect and require of the government that there be substantial changes in the practices of this department. I shall not read in full the first amendment which we moved to the effect that the terms of reference of the committee should be enlarged. That matter has been discussed fully and the views of ourselves and of the government on that are well known.	I
merely repeat that we feel the committee should have had the right to summon witnesses and send for papers if it felt at any time that that was desirable and would help its inquiry. At the present time the committee is inhibited from doing so by the limitation of its terms of reference.
The third amendment which we moved and which I intend to read contains perhaps the meat of our criticism of the department in so far as its policies and administration are concerned. The other amendment refers to some savings in expenditure which we thought could be effected. This particular amendment was moved by me and reads:
That the report be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"Your committee has devoted a good deal of attention to the administrative practices of this department, particularly of the immigration branch, with a view to determining whether greater efficiency, and therefore economy, could be effected. Departmental officials laid considerable emphasis on the complicated and time-consuming process involved in, and the very large volume of correspondence necessitated by, the present method of dealing with rejected applications for admission to Canada.
The evidence of these officials appears to establish that the present method necessarily involved great


expense not only to the department but to the applicant and his sponsor in Canada. Cases seem to be decided without reference to the decisions in other cases, and no sufficient attempt seems to be made to establish uniformity of decision. The reference here and in succeeding paragraphs is specifically to cases where a prospective immigrant is sponsored by an applicant who is a Canadian citizen.
It occurs to your committee therefore that it would be desirable, and more economical, if in these cases some more simple method could be devised, whereby reviews might be conducted in accordance with well established and generally understood rules, capable of general application to broad classifications of cases, instead of on the basis of individual discretion of junior officials which is frequently exercised to opposite effect in similar cases.
Furthermore, your committee was disturbed by the evidence of a substantial number of irregularities on the part of some immigration officers, involving acceptance of secret commissions or bribes. Evidence was given-
I want to stress that this was evidence that was given before the committee.
-that there were four groups of such cases arising out of applications processed through the Montreal office alone, the fourth group involving a minimum of 75 individual applications. The effect of the bribes was either to secure improper advancement of applications or in some cases the illegal admission of applicants. Your committee appreciates that loyal service is given by the vast majority of immigration officials, but cannot overlook the urgency of ensuring that administrative procedures be reviewed to ensure the elimination of such incidents in future.
In this respect, the secrecy which surrounds the processing of immigration applications, and the lack of opportunities to the applicant, his sponsor, or their solicitor, to inspect files and obtain full information as to the reasons for the disposition of the case, coupled with the enormously wide discretionary power given to immigration officers under the act, do seem to your committee to bring about a set of circumstances where these officers are placed in a position which invites the unscrupulous to take advantage of opportunities for improper personal profit with very little chance of detection.
Your committee desires to emphasize its admiration and respect for the loyalty of all but a small fraction of the officers, but feels that in fairness to the great body of honest officials, as well as from the point of view of increased economy and efficiency, every precaution should be taken to ensure that dishonesty cannot be practised by the few with impunity.
It became apparent also in the course of the committee's study that the present practice results in a refusal of information and reasons to applicants and their sponsors who are Canadian citizens, which is quite contrary to generally accepted concepts of what should be expected from an administrative body, and produces a deep sense of injustice.
All the foregoing considerations have led your committee to conclude that the setting up of a simple and routine review procedure for rejected cases, in which the maximum amount of information consistent with security would be furnished as to the reasons for rejection, would result in a very substantial saving of time and money to the department and to the applicant and his Canadian sponsor, would minimize the chances for corrupt practices, and would bring the administrative practices of the department into conformity with proper standards of justice.

Your committee therefore recommends:
(a)	That the department set up a review board along the lines of the immigration appeal board contemplated in the act.
(b)	That the maximum information consistent with security be furnished to applicants as to reasons for their rejection, and, with the consent of the applicant, be furnished to their Canadian sponsors.
(c)	That the review board give reasons for its decisions and that a body of administrative precedents be thus built up which is available to and known by departmental officials, applicants, sponsors, and their solicitors or counsel.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I have to point out that that recommendation which we made was rejected by the government majority, in that matter receiving as usual a lead from the minister, although the recommendation was supported, as I recall, by the combined opposition members present at the committee meeting. Nevertheless, it reflects our feeling with respect to the evidence and the facts we were able to bring before the committee, that the departmental administrative practices should be amended along the lines embodied in that resolution.
Unfortunately it has to be regarded as a fact that the minister's attitude in the committee made it perfectly clear that so far as he was concerned, and so long as he was minister, these and similar serious suggestions made by others would not be taken seriously and that the practices would remain substantially as they are now. This is unfortunate in the extreme, because, just in case anyone may be inclined to think that this represents a criticism advanced by the Conservative party for political purposes and is not one which is widely supported throughout the country, I should like to place before the committee at this stage some extracts from a judgment of the court of appeal of Ontario in a recent case arising out of the practices and procedures of the immigration department. This is particularly apt under the present circumstances and in connection with the present discussion, because we are very much concerned on this side of the house-and I know I state a fact when I say that the people of Canada are very much concerned-with the arbitrary methods followed in the department in dealing with immigration cases, the arbitrary refusal of adequate information to people who are concerned as to the reasons for rejection or the reasons for the order which may be made in deportation cases, and in general the arbitrary attitude which is in fact improper and would be recognized, I submit, by any other department of government under the circumstances as improper.
I shall not say that I was pleased at this -no one can be pleased when evidence of these improper practices comes to light-but
29, 1955	3293
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I was interested to find that the view we took has been supported in this case, which is entitled "In the Matter of an Application by Shirley Kathleen Brent, formerly Shirley Kathleen Taylor, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, and in the matter of the statutes of Canada (1866' 29 and 30, Victoria, chapter 45, and in the matter of rule 622."
This was an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Wilson of the Ontario supreme court, who had found in favour of Mrs. Brent and against the department, the appeal being taken by the department to the Ontario court of appeal. The judgment was delivered on April 5, 1955, by Mr. Justice Aylesworth on behalf of the court, the other judges, who are Mr. Justice Roach and Mr. Justice Gibson, concurring in Mr. Justice Aylesworth's reasons for judgment. I pause here to observe that Mr. Justice Gibson, presently of the appeal court of Ontario, is a former distinguished member of this government, a former minister of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was not then the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, but he was the minister who formerly was responsible for immigration matters now coming under this department. This case is cause for particular concern in that this judge has indicated his concurrence in these very strong criticisms pronounced by his brother judge with respect to the practices of the department.
I now come to the reading of the reasons for judgment. I do not have a copy of the official report in the form of a law report, but I have here a copy, which I should be glad to make available to the minister or to table in the house if it is desired, and which I am given to understand is a copy of the reasons for judgment as handed down by the court in this case.
I wish to read a passage starting at page 5 of the typewritten copy I have in my hand. First of all, may I explain the context by saying that the case as it was before Mr. Justice Wilson, from whose judgment the appeal was taken, was an appeal by Mrs. Brent against the order for deportation and the hearing under the order which had been granted to her, her contention being she had been supplied with no reasons for the making of the order with the result that she was entirely unable in effect to present any intelligent argument against the order, and that by denying to her and to her counsel a statement of the reasons upon which the order was based she was in effect denied her rights for a hearing.
3294	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Justice Wilson found in no uncertain terms that she was thus denied the rights which are fundamental to all Canadians and to our system of justice, and his reasoning was confirmed by the court of appeal in the following passages:
It will be seen at once that the specific subject matters concerning which his excellency in council is authorized to make regulations under clause (g) of section 61-
The reference is to the Immigration Act.
-are repeated verbatim in regulation 20 (4) except for the omission of the word "climatic". Obviously then, this regulation is designed to "regulate" as to those specific subject matters and those alone- not as to "carrying into effect the purposes and provisions" of the act in some other direction. Its effect, moreover, is not regulation by his excellency in council but regulation individually by any number of special inquiry officers scattered throughout the country, each according to his own "opinion".
If these "opinions" always coincided, that would be nothing short of miraculous; it would be cause for astonishment if they ever coincided, considering the extreme generality of the terms employed, the wide field each term covers and the application of each "temporarily or otherwise" either to conditions in Canada or in some other country. In short, those limited powers of legislation, wide though the limits of the subject matter may be, which parliament has delegated to his excellency in council, have not been exercised by the delegate at all-
The delegate being his excellency in council.
-but, on the contrary, by him have been redelegated bodily, for exercise not merely by some one other individual but, respectively and independently of each other, by every special inquiry officer who sees fit to invoke them and according to "the opinion'* of each such subdelegate.
Mr. Justice Aylesworth continues:
I can find nothing in the act expressly (or by inference, if that is permissible) manifesting any intention to permit or authorize any such procedure. On the other hand, it is reasonable to suppose that what parliament had in contemplation was the enactment of such regulations relevant to the named subject matters, or some of them, as in his excellency in council's own opinion were advisable and as, therefore, would be of general application to persons seeking entry into Canada regardless of the particular port of entry involved.
Surely, what was intended was legislation enacted by his excellency in council according to his wisdom and broad experience, prescribing standards for the general guidance of immigration officers and special inquiry officers operating at or near the borders of the country, not a wide divergency of rules and opinions ever changing according to the individual notions of such officers. The regulation is invalid and the order of deportation based upon it is invalid likewise, delegatus non potest delegare-
Then he cites a number of decisions which, for the sake of completion, perhaps I should include.
-Re Chemical Reference, (1943) S.C.R. 1; In Re Behari Lai et al., 13 B.C.R. 415; Geraghty v. Porter (1917), N.Z.L.R. 554; Halsbury 2nd Edition, Vol. 6, p. 527, para. 652 and p. 533, para 662, note (d).
Then the learned judge went on to say that he would quash the deportation order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I may tell the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that I accept his statement in exactly the spirit in which it is made. I am sure the hon. gentleman would help the committee, and I know he would help me, if he would tell us what statement, and to what words he is referring. The only report of what I said at Victoria that I accept as in any way an accurate report of what I said there is the report that appeared in the Victoria Times. The report which appeared in the Victoria Colonist, and which was the basis of reports that were spread all over Canada by Canadian Press, is-though I do not quarrel with the words-entirely misleading and erroneous, as my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Fairey) demonstrated in the house yesterday afternoon.
In this committee, sir, I believe it is a rule, although I do not insist upon it in the least, that any hon. member's word as to what he said must be accepted. I am quite prepared to accept and be criticized for the words that appeared in the Victoria Times, but I am not prepared for one minute to accept the highly erroneous report, as to meaning, that appeared in the Victoria Colonist and was reported all over this country.
3296	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have to say that I have not either the Victoria Times or the Victoria Colonist before me. I am quite prepared to meet the minister on those terms and to criticize a statement which he says was an accurate report of what he said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I do.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Unfortunately I had to be in another committee yesterday afternoon so I was not in the house when the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., placed, as I understand it, the two conflicting reports on the record. Perhaps if the minister could give me the page reference in Hansard-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think, sir, I could help the hon. gentleman that way because all that was placed on the record by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., was an editorial which appeared in the Victoria Times. But I happen to have in my possession the news report that appeared in the Victoria Times.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister could shorten this up by telling us what he did say, and then we would be able to criticize him on his own ground.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be delighted if hon. gentlemen did not believe it was an infringement of privilege to read a speech I made in Windsor last Saturday in which I did explain quite carefully what I had said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have the text of the hon. gentleman's speech in Windsor, and as I recall it the minister does not quote himself. He attempts to explain himself, but he does not quote himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite right. I would not presume to attempt to quote myself because, although I flatter myself I have a rather good memory, I made the speech at Victoria as a politician and as all of us in this house do as politicians, with a few notes on a single piece of paper. I had no text and no transcript was made of my speech. I would not undertake to say precisely, word for word, what I did say. That is why I say I am quite willing to accept the report which appeared in the Victoria Times. As soon as I can dig it out of these other papers, I will send it over to my hon. friend.
In fact, I think if the hon. gentleman would permit me,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could put it on the record so we would all have it. Perhaps the minister would be satisfied if I took, as an accurate report of what he said, his own words which do appear on the record at pages 2892 and 2893 of Hansard for April 18, 1955. These words are contained in a letter


which he wrote to the hon. member for Broadview, and in which the minister stated what he did say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In so far as the one sentence is concerned, I accept that unreservedly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the only sentence with which I am concerned. So there may be no doubt about the matter and so there will be no question of taking unfair advantage of the minister, I will read it. In the letter to the hon. member for Broadview the minister says:
It went like this:
Referring to the passage to which criticism was directed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the sentence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, to the sentence which has given rise to the criticism.
We all want to increase the population of this country and for that purpose if they are equally good people I don't believe that any immigrant, no matter where he comes from or how good he is, is as good as another Canadian baby, because the immigrant has to learn to be a Canadian and the baby is a Canadian to start with.
That is the end of the minister's quotation.
This matter is one which could be treated with a good deal of levity but my criticism, as I said before, is based on the fact that this is an improper statement to have been made by a person who is Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
It may have been a smart thing to say; it may have been a clever thing to say, if it had been said in private, and by a private citizen; but it is neither smart nor clever nor proper, in my submission, when it is said by the person who is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, charged with the administration of the immigration policy of the government, a policy which, as we are told-although I agree that there is considerable confusion as to what it is-is the encouragement of immigration into Canada, on a selective basis, of persons who will make good citizens. That, from the conflicting statements that have been made, is my understanding of the nub of the minister's policy.
This country is in need of such immigrants. If I have stated fairly the policy that I understand the minister is supposed to be following-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take no exception to that at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -then I say that is a most improper statement to have been made by the minister.
But I am not going to rely upon my own opinion only in this connection. I am going

to rely upon words which are taken from the Winnipeg Free Press in this connection. And I do so because, although I think it would be accurate to say that that paper is not too friendly disposed toward this minister, personally-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Apparently not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -it is, nevertheless, by and large a supporter of this government. And therefore in its criticism of a minister of this government it can be expected to put the case as fairly as the case can be put. And I find that the minister, from the outset, has been in difficulty as a result of this statement which he made in Victoria. He has been explaining it or attempting to explain it in almost every speech he has made since.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the date of that editorial, by the way?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are two editorials in the Winnipeg Free Press, and there is a press report. There is an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press which, 1 believe, appeared on April 17. What I have here is a reproduction of it in the Montreal Gazette of April 18. Then there is another editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press, taken from that paper itself, which I have before me, dated April 18. And there is a press report from the Winnipeg Free Press dated April 18.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "In every speech he has made since" happens to be one speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, the minister explained it in Winnipeg.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I made no speech in Winnipeg, sir.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, every time the minister opens his mouth he tries to make a speech. In Winnipeg, in the article referred to, the minister was interviewed by a press correspondent. The minister knew he was a press man, and he knew he was being interviewed by a press man. He tried to explain it there, he tried to explain it in the house and he tried to explain it in Windsor, in the speech to which he has referred. And each time he tries to explain it he makes it worse.
The Winnipeg Free Press, in an editorial which I believe was in that newspaper on April 17, but which is found in the Montreal Gazette on April 18, has this to say about it:
The latest remarks of the minister of immigration have incensed unusually many people, from the president of the Canadian Congress of Labor to the Toronto Globe and Mail, from Mr. George Hees to Mr. Solon Low. It is hard to see why he should be taken so much more seriously than he deserves. What Mr. Pickersgill said was, indeed, nonsense-in the exact sense of the word. It does not make sense to a reasonable man. But that is hardly an unprecedented quality in Mr. Pickers-gill's pronouncements.
3297
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Unless the minister wishes me to include them, I shall leave out the next two or three sentences and proceed further down, where it says:
No reasonable man really thinks that any Canadian baby, whatever its moral and mental and physical equipment, is more useful to the country than any immigrant; no reasonable man thinks that the services rendered to Canada by a new baby- services that will begin sixteen years or more hence-can be evaluated against the services of an immigrant, beginning now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And I never said so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It continues:
Mr. Pickersgill is not really so unreasonable as that; he gets excited and ties himself up.
Well, the minister was interviewed on his way back from Victoria, at Winnipeg, and I have the report in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 18. I would say that the minister was shown the editorial, passages from which I have just read; and the press report of the interview contains these passages:
A Canadian-born minister of citizenship and immigration stepped off the Dominion of Canada car at the Canadian Pacific station, smiled faintly and said the whole thing was all very silly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, isn't it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister's statement was not only silly; it was irresponsible and reprehensible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The quotation was certainly silly; and no one would agree with that more than I would.


Edmund Davie Fulton: After all, if a speech is silly I do not see how any quotation from it could help being silly. Of course the quotation was silly. Then the minister was shown the editorial, and he asked if he could keep it. Then the report goes on:
But the minister wanted to explain. What the Canadian Press had quoted him as saying was: "I don't believe any immigrant ... no matter where he comes from or how good he is . . . is as good as another Canadian baby."
Now, the minister smiled, if one considered his whole statement, one saw the thing in its proper perspective.
"What I really said was that we wanted to increase the population of the country. For that purpose, if they were equally good people I didn't believe any immigrant, no matter how good he was or where he came from, was as good as another Canadian baby-
The minister is saying it all over again. That is my interjection.
-because we brought people to this country to become Canadians-and the babies were Canadians to start with".
And this is the important part:
But the minister admitted, the birth rate wasn't high enough to increase the population as fast as was desirable. Therefore the government had to encourage the next best thing-the entry of the "best kind" of immigrants.
3298	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chairman, may I ask what kind of encouragement the minister thinks he is giving to the bringing of immigrants to Canada, when he makes the silly and reprehensible statements he has made? And then, one further passage:
Now, the minister continued, "it's all very silly, really-"


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, isn't it?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Again I quite agree with the minister. I had hardly realized the extent of silliness of which the minister could be guilty. I am glad he agrees.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not write that piece. Mr. Fulton: This is a quotation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More quotations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It says:
Now, the minister continued, "it's all very silly, really. I wouldn't have got one-tenth the advertising if it was something sensible".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, would I?


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: Do you agree with that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would answer my question. Does he agree with that?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, there are certain courtesies and proprieties which are expected to be observed between members in debates in this chamber, so I hope the minister will not press me too hard to answer that. It says:
Since Mr. Pickersgill is not, generally speaking, muddle-headed, only one purpose can rationally be assigned to this "explanation": Mr. Pickersgiil wanted to confirm that what he said was nonsense. He also appeared to throw some other light on 

his motives: if, Mr. Pickersgill commented, he had said something sensible at Victoria, "I wouldn't have got one-tenth the advertising".
As I said when I first started to discuss this particular statement of the minister, Mr. Chairman, one could treat this with considerable levity, but I am not going to do so, although it is difficult to avoid the language of levity creeping in because the statement is so absurd. I am not going to do it because, as I have said, I consider the statement reprehensible, coming as it did from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I consider it reprehensible because it is the policy of this government to bring desirable immigrants into Canada. That has been pointed out in one of the press articles which I quoted. It is considered that the native birth rate is not high enough to fill the population needs of Canada. This is official government policy. Therefore, the only effect of what the minister has said is to draw invidious comparisons between native-born Canadians and Canadians who came to this country as immigrants. That, Mr. Chairman, I am sure all members of the committee will agree is a reprehensible thing for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to have undertaken to do.
I am not surprised that the minister has been unable satisfactorily to explain what he said in spite of the many attempts he has made to do sc. I have placed on the record here at length the editorials and the extracts of the minister's own words for the purpose of attempting to treat this as fairly as possible, making every effort to ascertain exactly what the minister did say. Then, taking his own words in explanation of what he said, one is unable to come to any other conclusion than that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has exhibited a degree of irresponsibility which confirms us in the opinion I expressed earlier, namely, that there is ample ground for the unfortunate conclusion that the policies of this government with respect to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration do not justify the confidence of the house or the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not intend to take much of the time of the committee except on one point, the last point the hon. gentleman dealt with. The speech that I made in Victoria was listened to by a very distinguished and respected member of this house on whose behalf I spoke, a member who was, I believe, 20 years of age when he came to this country as an immigrant. It was listened to by my father in law, who was born in Ireland and who did not come here until he was half grown up; it was listened to by a group of East Indian Canadians who had

a most amicable conference with me afterwards. I received the warmest congratulations of a Chinese Canadian citizen. It was listened to by the usual audience in Victoria, where it is impossible to have an adult audience without having a large number of immigrants. Not one person there showed the slightest evidence that anything unusual, remarkable or noteworthy had been said because nothing remarkable or noteworthy had been said. All that was said-


Edmund Davie Fulton: They probably could not
believe it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -on that occasion, I feel perfectly certain that the hon. member for Nanaimo, who was kind enough to yield to me, would agree with. I discovered when I went and spent some time in England that it is hard when you are grown up to adapt yourself to the ways of a new country, and that is why I believe that for the purpose of increasing the population of a country, taking one person with another, if they are equally able and equally good, it is perfectly obvious that the person brought up in the country will, other things being equal, be able to make more easily the adaptation we all have to make if we are to live happily with our fellow men.
I said in that speech, and I am reported in the Victoria Times as having said it, that I was not asserting that Canadians were inherently superior to anybody else, or that there was any racial superiority or anything of that sort. I said none of these things. I repudiate them. As the hon. member for Victoria pointed out yesterday by reading the editorial from the Victoria Times, which, it is no secret, was written by someone who was in the audience, I said almost the exact opposite. This silly report, and no one will agree more completely than I do with the hon. member for Kamloops that this report, which was spread across this country by the Canadian Press-and I want to be fair to them, as the hon. member was not-they did not represent it as a quotation; they represented it as part of a quotation and there were dots indicating omissions in every report I saw.
To illustrate how easily this sort of thing can happen, I hold in my hand a clipping from the Victoria Times of October 20, 1954, which deals with a speech made in Victoria by the hon. member for Kamloops. Apparently I am not the only member of this house who speaks in Victoria.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: October 20, 1954.
50433-209J
29, 1955	3299
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Is this a Liberal paper?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a Liberal paper.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No doubt.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It has not yet left the Liberal party, as the Vancouver Sun has done.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, not yet, nor is it likely to. Here is what the hon. member for Kamloops said in Victoria:
Liberals, he said, paid "lip service" to British connections, but that was all. They had gone "pretty far along the road of whether or not we should remain a British nation."
That is all in quotation marks. Then the article goes on to say-and this is not in quotation marks; I suppose this is the sense of what he said-
Elements against British ties were largely in Quebec, he said.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Ah, ah!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Who said that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Kamloops. If the Canadian Press had picked that one sentence up and spread it all across this country, it would probably have been unfair to the hon. member for Kamloops.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are now doing it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is just the kind of-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are now doing it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is just the kind of thing that happened to me. What I said in Winnipeg about advertising was meant to be taken lightly. It is a very great mistake, apparently, for a politician to make flippant remarks. I recognize it, and every time I do it I am duly contrite. I find that every time I make a flippant remark, in his presence, the hon. member for Kamloops takes the remark seriously, and I shall try hard in the future to be solemn, if I can. Sometimes it is difficult.
I want to say a little more about the less silly parts of the hon. gentleman's speech. The hon. gentleman referred to the Brent case. I must say that the judgment in the Brent case has occasioned me and my department very serious concern, and so it should. If the judgment in the Brent case were to stand we would have to give very serious consideration to the whole state of the immigration law. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, not because of the particular person involved, but because of the point of law involved, that it is my intention to recommend that we appeal that case to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is very important; it is absolutely vital to those of us who have to administer it and to this parliament and to everybody else to know for sure what
3300	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the immigration law of this country really is. Therefore, the only proper course to take is to appeal it and to find out what the body which we in this parliament have set up to be the final arbiter in these matters should say the law is in this regard. Therefore, I do not intend to say anything myself about the judgment in the Brent case.
The hon. gentleman said that, because I found it impossible to accept certain suggestions which he made in the committee upstairs, these and similar serious suggestions would not be taken seriously by the present minister. I think I can treat a statement like that as it deserves to be treated. I think I am pretty well known on both sides of this house and I do not think there are many hon. members who have not found me willing when I have made a mistake to say so at once, who have not found me willing when any sensible and legal and proper suggestion is made to try to carry it out. I hope that I shall continue to act in that way. If I ever become so set in my ways that I will not listen to reason from whatever quarter it comes, I hope the Canadian people will deal with me as I shall deserve to be dealt with.


William McLean Hamilton: We
shall miss you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Kamloops talked about the inability of the opposition to obtain information in the committee. I could quote the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, I could quote the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, and I could quote the hon. member for St. Paul's. However, as I said at the beginning, I do not intend to cumber the record with quotations from the proceedings of the committee on estimates.
I believe it is a fair statement to make to say that there was not a single question put to me or to my officials about my department that we did not attempt to answer fully in the committee. It is true that there were one or two questions asked about United States immigration laws and one or two questions about other departments; and I was indiscreet enough to give partial answers to them. I think perhaps that that was a mistake, but so far as my department was concerned I tried to provide every bit of information it was possible to give.
The hon. member talked about his inability to introduce other people into the committee, people who were not members of the committee, people who he evidently thought were superior to the members of the committee in their knowledge and ability. One reason I was not particularly keen to have these strangers introduced was that I have a rather


high view of the members of this house, perhaps more so than the hon. member for Kamloops seems to have. It seems to me that the kind of experience which we have collectively in this house, the kind of experience which occasioned our election to this house, is the sort of thing which makes it more likely that hon. members of this house will be able to ask appropriate questions about departmental administration than any outsider, however specialized he may be.
It happened that there was really only one outsider whom the hon. gentleman seemed particularly anxious to bring into the committee, and because of that I intend to say something and I am not going to take any risks. The hon. gentleman referred to the committee and the findings of the Canadian Bar Association.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will correct that, I should have said the findings of the subcommittee on immigration of the civil liberties section of the Canadian Bar Association, accepted by that section.


Mr. Sinclair:: Would the hon. member correct the speech he made on Quebec?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It does not need correction. The minister has stated that he is quite aware that I did not say what was not in quotations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no, I did not say that. I said no doubt it was taken out of its context, but I did not say that the hon. gentleman did not say that. If the hon. gentleman wants to correct that, I am willing to concede him time in which to correct it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has stated the true facts and I thank him for doing so. He said he knew I did not say that, and that to say I did would be unfair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that. I am willing to have the hon. gentleman misrepresent me if he wishes; it does not matter. I do not feel that I need to descend to using little bits and pieces of quotations to misrepresent my opponents. If I cannot do any better than that in public life, I shall leave it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are waiting for you to.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To come back to this matter of the Canadian Bar Association. A report was made by two out of three members of a subcommittee. So far as I have been able to find out there was not any report accepted or approved by anybody else except possibly the hon. member for Kamloops, and in that regard he can speak for himself.
Since the question of what happened regarding immigration at the Canadian Bar Association has been raised here, I should like to be permitted to read into the record

a statement of the facts as they are known to me. The accuracy of a number of things, certainly of some of my statements, was called in question by several newspapers while the committee was going on, and that is my reason for putting this statement on the record. I crave the indulgence of the committee in doing so.
I think generally speaking I have been very patient with interruptions in this house. I have tried never to object; I have always tried to resume my seat at any time that any hon. member wants to ask a question. I have never raised any objection to being interrupted, but I would crave the indulgence of the committee on this occasion to be allowed to make this statement without interruption. I have tried to make it as nonprovocative and as factual as possible and in fairness I should like to have it appear as a single piece.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister starts would he indicate where he got the information upon which he bases this statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the sources of the information will be quite apparent from the statement. If they are not, and if the hon. member will make a note of any of them, I shall endeavour to explain afterward. I have gone over this several times and I did try to make it as complete as I could.
I was aware that there was a subcommittee on immigration of the committee on civil liberties of the Canadian Bar Association, but I had no contact whatsoever with its activities before the meeting of the bar association in Winnipeg. I returned to Ottawa from Newfoundland at the time the presentation of the report and the attendant publicity in Winnipeg were at their height.
I learned that a report, dated August 27, 1954, and signed by John H. McDonald,chairman of the subcommittee, had been submitted to the Winnipeg meeting. My deputy minister had a copy of this document and I placed the full text on Hansard on February 17 last; it appears at pages 1241 and 1242. Paragraph 4 of that document contains the following passage:
In addition a great deal of valuable research work was undertaken by John R. Taylor, a member of the committee. Mr. Taylor has reviewed over two hundred specific cases and has written four comprehensive reports on administrative procedures. These reports have been invaluable to the subcommittee and will form the basis for further study and representations. Copies of these reports are being filed with the chairman of the committee on civil liberties. However, the committee and particularly Mr. Taylor, the author, believe that until such time as the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has had an opportunity of reviewing the detailed material contained in these reports, they should not be generally distributed.
29, 1955	3301
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
It is obvious from that passage that these four reports of Mr. Taylor's were not a part of the published report. On September 7, 1954, I received a letter from Mr. J. R. Taylor written from the hotel Palliser in Calgary. I read this letter to the special committee on estimates and it can be found at pages 129 to 131 of the proceedings of that committee for March 2. In that letter Mr. Taylor said:
I desired that my reports be filed with the association but be not circulated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: "Desired" is in the past tense?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, "desired".
I understand John McDonald will be giving you a copy of his report-you will notice on page 2 of his report that mention is made that I desired "particularly" that the reports be not circulated.
That is the end of the quotation.
I was assured by my deputy minister that no other documents were made public in Winnipeg and no documents whatever were sent to me by Mr. Taylor or anyone else.
I was greatly surprised, therefore, when on February 17 the hon. member for Prince Albert quoted what he described as the report of the subcommittee. I stated, on a question of privilege reported on page 1259 of Hansard, that I had read the full report that was actually presented in Winnipeg and that the passage the hon. member was reading was not in that document. The hon. member then identified what he was reading as attachments or appendices to the report.
On February 18 I raised a point of order with respect to the documents which had been quoted by the hon. member for Prince Albert. I expressed the view that the house was entitled to have these documents identified and to have them laid on the table. The Speaker ruled that he did not have the power to require the hon. member to table the documents, and the hon. member for Prince Albert did not see fit to table them of his own motion. Indeed, when I ventured to ask him the date of one of the documents he had quoted, his reply was, and this is quoted from Hansard:
Will the hon. member sit down? I am speaking.
At that time I had never seen the documents which the hon. member for Prince Albert was citing and had no way of identifying them. It is true, as I explained later in the estimates committee, that I had seen certain documents prepared by Mr. Taylor, which he had shown to my deputy minister and left with the department. It was not until March 2, 1955, when the hon. member for Kamloops read in the estimates committee a letter he had received from Mr. Taylor, that I learned for sure that two of the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration documents in the departmental file were two of the four reports by Mr. Taylor.
In that letter, Mr. Taylor said:
Copies of two of the reports of these studies, in their final form, were left with the deputy minister of citizenship and immigration in Ottawa on or about the 26th August, 1954, and the other two in original form were read and studied by him at that time. Copies of these last two reports were given to the deputy minister at Winnipeg by the writer. The deputy minister has, therefore, had in his possession copies of all four documents since the beginning of September, 1954.
The dates given in Mr. Taylor's letter to the hon. member for Kamloops made it clear to me for the first time that two of the documents we had in the department were copies of these reports of Mr. Taylor's.
The deputy minister has no recollection of being given the other two reports while he was in Winnipeg or since, and we have not been able to find copies of these documents in the departmental files. To the best of my knowledge and belief I have never seen them. I am not questioning Mr. Taylor's veracity, but it does seem probable that his recollection is not accurate; and that he did not give them to the deputy in Winnipeg. If he had given the documents to my deputy it is surprising that Mr. Taylor did not mention them to me in the letter he wrote to me in September.
Mr. Taylor also said in his letter to Mr. Fulton, and here again I quote:
None of these reports was ever regarded as a secret or confidential document. They were delivered to the deputy minister in the hope, and with the expectation that he would analyze them and discuss them with the minister.
Needless to say, I did examine the two documents dated July 13 and July 20 when they were first shown to me by the deputy minister last September. One of these documents contains what purport to be summaries of applications for the admission to Canada of immigrants from China and the other contains similar material about applications for the admission of immigrants from India. I have had the documents carefully checked by the officials of my department and I am informed that, with the exception of one single case, every case referred to in these documents is a case which was handled by Mr. Taylor or by Mr. Taylor's law firm for clients of that firm. In other words, all the information contained in these documents is based on information given to Mr. Taylor by his clients or given to Mr. Taylor when acting for his clients by officers of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
When it became clear on March 2 that two documents in the departmental files were copies of two of Mr. Taylor's reports, I would have made them public at once but for one

reason. I did not want to take the responsibility for making public documents which had never been communicated officially to my department, which were not part of the records of the department, and which were based almost entirely upon information about the private affairs of individuals which Mr. Taylor as a lawyer had acquired in his professional relationship with his clients.
When, however, the hon. member for Kamloops brought this matter up for the fourth or fifth or sixth time in the special committee on estimates on March 10, last, I made the following statement, and I am quoting from the proceedings of the committee:
I might save a great deal of the time of the committee and enable the committee to make a much better decision about the motions raised by Mr. Fulton by saying that the last time this subject was brought up in the committee I was asked by one member the question as to who had signed the two documents in my deputy's possession which appeared to be the same as two of the documents referred to in Mr. Taylor's letter to Mr. Fulton. I examined the mimeographed documents which I have. They bear no signature, of course, but typed at the bottoms of both these documents is the name of Mr. Taylor and of Mr. Taylor only.


Mr. Macnaughton:: I think I asked you that question for the purpose of seeing how authentic these documents were.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot vouch for that, but I am willing to say this right now, that Mr. Taylor put these documents into the possession of my deputy minister under certain conditions which both the deputy and I thought we understood, and which Mr. Taylor confirmed in writing to me in a letter which has been placed on the record of this committee. Then Mr. Taylor saw fit to write to Mr. Fulton, without doing me the courtesy of bothering to write to me, saying he was now prepared to have me take a different course. If Mr. Taylor wants to write to me direct and tell me he takes personal responsibility for these documents which bear his name only, I will lay them before the committee just as soon as I get Mr. Taylor's letter, and then the committee will have a chance to say whether the stuff in these documents give Mr. Taylor any particular title to appear as an expert in this matter. And if he wants to send me the two documents which I have not seen and which my deputy minister has not got in his possession I will be prepared to lay them on the table without even looking them over. I do not think, therefore, that we need to detain the committee for long on the subject of Mr. Fulton's motion.
Mr. Chairman, I stand by that offer. But so far I have had no word of any kind from Mr. Taylor about this subject.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You have not written to him, have you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: And so far I am still ignorant of the contents of two of his four reports-the one dated August 5 and the one dated August 10, 1954, referred to in Mr. Taylor's letter to the hon. member for Kamloops. I suspect, however, that they, like the other two documents, are confined to Chinese and Indian cases because Chinese

and Indian cases are the only ones Mr. Taylor has ever discussed with the department in his many and lengthy discussions with departmental officials.
Since the war, Canada has admitted nearly
1.200.000	immigrants. Of that very large number probably something fewer than
15.000	have been of Chinese or East Indian origin. Mr. Taylor's case against the department is based upon a relatively small number even of the Chinese and Indian cases. I think most members of the committee and most Canadians will regard this as a pretty narrow basis on which to convict the immigration branch of maladministration.
I have made these observations because I think the public is entitled to know the kind of basis there is for these charges. I have said over and over again that the department has not the slightest objection to the publication of these reports by Mr. Taylor, if he wants to publish them on his own responsibility. So far as I am concerned, sir, that is really all I have to say about this subject.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of beating this rather badly battered straw any further. As an immigrant baby I hesitate to deal with the relative merits of immigrant babies and native-born babies. The terrible thought does occur to me that had I been a native-born Canadian baby I might have met the dreadful fate of being a cabinet minister, or the equally dreadful fate of being a member of the official opposition. However, I think perhaps I am saved from this by the circumstances of my birth, deplorable though they may be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Ambitions as yet unrealized.


Colin Cameron: Yes, and, of course, forever beyond my reach because of the unfortunate circumstances of my birth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Rather, your party affiliation.


Colin Cameron: I do not think I will waste any more time on that. I believe the minister will agree it was a very silly thing to say. We all say silly things on occasion, but it is not worth all the fuss that has been made about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not agree more.


Colin Cameron: I want to come back to the question of the administration of the department and deal with the case the hon. member for Kamloops brought up a while ago. I would recall to your mind, Mr. Chairman, that in the first discussions we had in the house respecting this department I brought up this particular case. You may
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration recall that the minister questioned the propriety of my bringing it up, because it was then going before the courts.
I dropped the matter and discussed it no further, but I suggested at that time that all available evidence, all previous decisions, would indicate that the appeal court of Ontario would reject the appeal of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in this case, and that it was merely another stubborn and obstinate attempt to get the courts of Canada to adopt a position they have consistently refused to adopt.
The minister tells us that he proposes to take this case to the Supreme Court of Canada. I suggest that this will be a waste of public money, and that before he does so he should examine very carefully the case of Samejima v. The King, referred to in this judgment, which I mentioned in the house earlier in the session, and the statements of the late Sir Lyman Duff in that connection, because it is a case that is completely on all fours with the Brent case.
It was the case that was quoted in every court where the Brent case was dealt with, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. It became the type case for this sort of thing. There was a definite ruling by the supreme court over 20 years ago. I suggest that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should have very much firmer grounds than appear evident now for taking the Brent case to the Supreme Court of Canada and again asking the supreme judicial body of this country to reverse a decision they made previously and, moreover, to again question decisions that have been made in almost every court in Canada.
The Samejima case went from the supreme court of British Columbia to the appeal court of British Columbia to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Brent case has been dragged through the courts and is now apparently going to the topmost rung of the ladder. I suggest, sir, that this indicates a rather peculiar attitude on the part of the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I cannot for the life of me see what excuse there is for doing it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In fairness, the decision is mine.


Colin Cameron: Oh, yes, quite right. I will certainly put all the blame on the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you please.


Colin Cameron: I think he is very ill-advised to do so, and for the life of me I cannot see what excuse he has for doing it. He has case after case, decision after decision, and I think he is merely going to hold
3304	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration up the department again to a certain amount of ridicule in the eyes of those who follow these cases.
There is another matter in connection with this decision that I think bears very serious study. I have no doubt whatever that the Supreme Court of Canada is going to uphold the Aylesworth decision. I see no reason to imagine that they would do otherwise than uphold the supreme and appeal courts of British Columbia, as in the Samejima case. When that is done, and I am sure it is going to be done, it will be necessary for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration not only to refrain from this obstinate and repeated attempt to get the courts to change their mind, but it will also be necessary for the department and the minister to set up new administrative machinery; because Mr. Justice Aylesworth quite bluntly tells them they are breaking the law by their present methods, that they are not holding the inquiries as set forth by the law, and that in order to do so they must establish different procedures. Mr. Justice Aylesworth points out that the governor general in council had no authority under the act to delegate the powers delegated to him as they are being delegated today.
In light of that, it will be necessary for the department to establish completely different methods of procedure in the holding of these deportation hearings. I think myself that is something that is long overdue. It is something which, once established, will go a long way to remove the cloud of suspicion and doubt that now hangs around this department. I would urge the minister most earnestly to consider seriously not wasting any more time or any more public funds in an attempt to get the courts to do something they have repeatedly said they will not do.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I do not wish to interfere with the hon. member's line of argument at all in so far as the merits of necessary changes in the regulations of the immigration department are concerned, but it appears to me that perhaps I have been somewhat dilatory in not bringing this point to the attention of the committee before. If a case is before the courts I do not think it is competent for any member to express an opinion as to the outcome or merits of that particular case. I realize that the matter was not raised by the Chair before, and that perhaps more latitude has already been allowed than should have been, but I would ask the hon. member who now has the floor and those who follow him to endeavour to so arrange their remarks and arguments that


they do not actually discuss the merits of a case which we are now informed is still before the courts.


Colin Cameron: I would point out to you, sir, that I only have official knowledge of the fact that this case has been decided by the appeal court of the province of Ontario. This afternoon the minister suggested that he was considering referring it to a higher court. As far as I know he has not yet done so. He may have done so. He did not raise that point and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he is the only person in possession of the knowledge that would enable him to raise that point of order against my remarks on this score. I think we have to have that much latitude. We surely cannot be shut out for fear that at some future time a case we are discussing is going to be taken to a higher court.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I had hoped to make it clear to the hon. member who has the floor that I did not wish to interfere with his argument at all except in so far as he was discussing the merits of a case which we now know is before the courts. I think I should say in passing that I feel it is not my duty to wait until a minister or someone else raises a point of order. If I believe anything is being said that is beyond the limits of order, it is my duty to point that out to the committee. I think the hon. member now realizes the situation we are in, and I am quite sure he can continue to criticize the methods of the department without actually expressing an opinion as to the outcome of a case which we now know is under appeal.


Colin Cameron: I am sorry, but with all due deference to you, sir, I am still quite in doubt and I must repeat this. I submit I am only out of order if you or someone else has definite knowledge that this matter has been formally taken to the supreme court. This committee has not been so informed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, perhaps I ought to be a little more precise. It is my intention to recommend to the Attorney General of Canada, who does not happen to be in the chamber at the moment, that this case be appealed. It is my firm intention to do that; there is no question about that.


Colin Cameron: If that action had been taken it certainly would be out of order for any member to discuss this case, but until that action has been taken I suggest this is as far as it has gone. This court decision has been referred to, and incidentally I may say, sir, I do not presume to discuss that judgment from the point of view of the law, because I am not capable of doing so.

I am merely quoting the judgment of the learned justices of the appeal court of Ontario, and pointing out that their judgment coincides with judgments given repeatedly by other learned justices in other parts of Canada, as well as in the Supreme Court of Canada.
I am questioning the wisdom of the minister in deciding to once again try to get the courts to do something they have more than once said they would not do.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The hon. member may continue, but I called him to order because he was expressing the one opinion which I have now decided in my own mind he is not entitled to express in his comments, and that is what should be the outcome of the appeal of legal case.


Colin Cameron: I am not discussing what should be the outcome. I am discussing the wisdom of the department in placing this case before another court.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member may continue, and I think it is not necessary for us to carry on this discussion. The hon. member knows as well as I do-


Colin Cameron: I have finished making my point anyway, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: -that if it is unwise to appeal a certain case it can only be unwise because of the anticipated result of that appeal. I do not think it is necessary for the hon. gentleman and me to carry on the argument. I am ruling that the case is reported to us, so far as the Chair knows, as subject to appeal, and therefore a discussion of the outcome or the merits of the appeal is not in order.
At the same time, as I said when I raised this point, I realized there was considerable discussion of this matter earlier when perhaps we did not realize what the situation was. I feel quite certain that the hon. member's argument which I have interrupted could be continued without transgressing what have been the accepted rules of this committee.


Colin Cameron: This puts me in a very difficult position, and will put several members of this committee in a difficult position, because you are not merely ruling out discussion of this case, but you are ruling out any discussion of every case that has come before the courts but has not yet gone to the Supreme Court of Canada. With regard to citizenship and immigration you are ruling that we have to wait until we hear definitely the minister has not decided to appeal before we can discuss the case.
29, 1955	3305
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John George Diefenbaker: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I submit that any suggestion on the part of the minister that the case may be appealed-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I made no such suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister stated a while ago that there was a possibility this might be appealed. Whether or not he made that statement I am not saying, but that was the inference I took from his remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I just clarify that point? What I said in response to the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo was that the case had not yet been appealed but it was my firm intention to recommend appeal to the Attorney General. As a matter of fact, I want to make it quite clear that 1 have raised no point about this discussion at all.


John George Diefenbaker: No, I do not suggest that. We have arrived at the point where you could call a case sub judice simply because of the fact that some day in the future the minister may decide to appeal. This ruling would deny discussion of almost any judgment. I submit with greatest respect to Your Honour than the hon. gentleman who has the floor is entitled to refer to a judgment which, until it is appealed, is the final judgment on this matter. This judgment represents an appeal from the original hearing of an application for habeas corpus and a motion by way of certiorari, and it is the final judgment on the subject until another appeal is made. The matter, therefore, is not sub judice, so I would urge with great respect that the hon. gentleman is entitled to proceed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My thought on the point of order was simply this. My understanding of the rule is that it is very clear. A case to be sub judice in the sense that it would be improper to discuss it here has to be before the courts, meaning that either a writ has been issued or some proceedings have been taken to commence action or, in the case of an appeal, that notice of the appeal has been filed. I am reasonably satisfied Your Honour will find that to be the rule; and viewed in that light, the mere declaration by a person of an intention to appeal, or a recommendation to the Attorney General that an appeal should be taken, is not, I think, sufficient to bring it within the rule and make the case sub judice.


Mr. Crestohl:: With all due deference to the various experts, I am of the opinion that so long as the time for an appeal has not run out, the case is still sub judice. It is not a final judgment if the time for appeal in this
3306	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration case has not run out as yet. An appeal may be launched at any time before the time does run out.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think we can-did
you want to speak to the point of order?


Colin Cameron: I still have something I want to say on this decision. I want to deal again with Mr. Justice Aylesworth's decision.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does the hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?


Colin Cameron: No.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If I may put it this way, a point of order depends not only on a matter of law but on matters of fact as well.
I think the committee will agree that a matter is sub judice which is actually before the court, and cannot properly be discussed within this house. The reason for that rule is fairly obvious, that there shall not be pressure of any kind brought from this legislative body upon the judicial branch of the government. So far I think we can agree.
Then, of course, the question we have before us now is, is this case before the courts or not? I am not prepared to go so far as has been suggested and say that as long as the case is capable of being appealed it may not be discussed here. I understood, in the rather rapid debate that has been going on, that a statement had been made that this case is definitely being appealed. I am in the hands of those who know the facts as to the status of this case. If this case is definitely being appealed in my opinion it is not capable of discussion in this house, for exactly the same reason that it would not be capable of discussion if the appeal were actually being argued, namely that knowing the case was going before the courts it would not be right for members of this house to discuss its merits. I think the committee will agree with me on that.
I believe we shall have to accept the word of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who can tell us definitely whether or not this case is being appealed. If it is, I am going to rule that it should not be discussed at the present time. If it may be or may not be, then of course I am not in a position to rule that it should not be discussed, because we do not know that it is going to be appealed. So far as I am concerned the question is one of fact, as to whether or not this case is definitely being appealed. I would presume the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is the only person who could inform us on that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall assist the committee, if I can. I have refrained from discussing this
[Mr. Crestohl.l

case because, as I said, I intend to recommend to my colleague the Attorney General that the case be appealed. However, I have not yet made that recommendation to him, and I am not going to make his decision for him. Therefore I do not think one can say that the appeal has yet been entered. This is why I took no exception to what was being said about it by the hon. member for Kamloops or the hon. member for Nanaimo.
I think it would be improper for me to discuss the case, because I do intend to recommend appeal and, as I said before, I intend to recommend appeal because I want the final arbiter to say what the law is. But I would certainly say it is quite proper for the hon. member for Nanaimo to give reasons why he thinks it would be a waste of public money, as he has said, to make the appeal. I should think the hon. member could draw analogies between this and other cases, and so on. I felt I could take no exception to that and, therefore, did not raise the point. My only feeling is that I should not discuss it; but I did not feel that that self-denying ordinance should be applied to any other member.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If I have heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration correctly, while it is the intention to make certain recommendations it has not been definitely decided by the law officers of the crown that this appeal will be proceeded with. Under these circumstances I have cost this committee some 15 or 20 minutes which might otherwise have been spent in discussing the affairs of the department before the committee. However, I hope hon. members will agree that perhaps the time has not been wasted. I would hope also that the hon. member for Nanaimo would agree that it is very desirable that in this body we should not at any time discuss the merits of matters which are to be decided by the non-political branch of government, namely the judicial body.
I find myself now in the position that we will have to rely entirely upon the good judgment of the hon. member for Nanaimo as to the language in which he chooses to couch his criticisms of the administration of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Perhaps he would permit me to say, not in any debating sense at all, that in my opinion it would be advisable to be somewhat restrained in any language we might use respecting the merits of a case which we have some reason to believe is due to appear before the final court of appeal in the land.
Further than that I cannot go at the present time, and the hon. member for Nanaimo will be permitted to continue his

remarks and, of course, will not be penalized, in time, for the time lost because of this interruption.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I have only one or two comments to make and, in doing so, I shall bear in mind what you have said. I am sorry if you had reason to believe that I have been unrestrained in my comments.
There is one point I do wish to bring to the attention of the minister, and that is the real burden of the criticism contained in this judgment which was, as I said, that the governor general in council had no legislative authority to delegate his powers and that, in order that the legislative powers delegated to the governor general in council be carried out, the minister should draft for the approval of the governor general in council a set of regulations by which officials could render similar decisions in any part of Canada rather than, as at present, leaving it to the responsibility of an individual official in any part of the country to make the decision for himself. That, I feel convinced, no matter what may be the outcome of this case, is something the minister will have to consider very seriously indeed.
After all, I would point out that it is a precedent followed by many other departments in carrying out regulative powers conferred upon them by the house.


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief. Let me say at the outset that we in this group attach a great deal of importance to the work of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. In terms of future growth, and of making Canada a major power in terms of filling the vacuum in population-I might say the dangerous vacuum-which now exists, I think we will all agree that the minister has a great responsibility in the department of which he is in charge.
Further evidence that our people in Canada follow with great interest all facets of the activities of the department is clearly shown by the sensational publicity recently given to our minister by reason of his address in Victoria. I do not intend to labour that matter at all. I feel the minister has learned a lesson in that he must now realize that disturbing racial backgrounds and heritage is dangerous and these are sensitive matters with the people of Canada. Perhaps this offers a subject that could be exploited politically, but I do not think any useful purpose can be served by doing so. I personally have every confidence that our minister is anxious to do as good a job as he possibly can, and that he will bring in whatever improvements and corrections are necessary to make his
Private Bills
one of the most efficient departments of government.
However, I would appreciate learning from him his views on another matter which is of concern to me, because I do believe that in a sense it reflects gross discrimination. Perhaps the minister will recall that when the initial debate on immigration took place in the house in February I brought the matter up casually. At this time I would appreciate if the minister would express his views. The matter I have in mind involves the status of certain babies.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but, it being five o'clock, the house will proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: There are several private bills to be studied in committee of the whole. Is it agreed that they should all be considered in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Then is it agreed that I do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on certain private bills, namely orders numbers 25 to 153 inclusive?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
FREDERICTON & GRAND LAKE COAL & RAILWAY COMPANY
The house in committee on Bill No. 307, respecting the Fredericton & Grand Lake Coal & Railway Company-Mr. Murphy (Westmorland)-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Undertaking of the Fredericton & Grand Lake Coal & Railway Company vested in Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, would the sponsor of the bill indicate whether all parties concerned, principally the Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway, have agreed with the request that this legislation be put through?


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: The company, the Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Further than that, the Canadian Pacific Railway have a 999-year lease on the Fredericton and Grand Lake Coal and Railway Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was that not long enough?


Henry Joseph Murphy: Well, this is a procedure that is being followed by the

Private Bills
Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to consolidate their holdings and reduce the number of companies, to simplify the organization.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 244, to consolidate and amend acts relating to the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada- Mr. Deschatelets-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, in introducing this private bill on March 15 I made an unfortunate statement which I should like to correct. I quote from page 2046 of Hansard as follows:
Architecture is the only profession, I think, which is not represented in this house. In view of the tremendous contribution of architects to the expansion of this country it is to be hoped that some day an architect will have the privilege of sitting in this house.
Later on my attention was drawn to the fact that one of our colleagues is a member of this profession. I refer to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. Our colleague is a practising architect in the city of Quebec, a member of the P.Q.A.A. and a fellow of the R.A.I.C. I am therefore taking this opportunity to apologize to my colleague, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency, and I wish to add that the profession is not only represented here; it is represented by a learned and fine gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I should like to ask the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont who is sponsoring this bill. The title indicates that it does two things: it consolidates, and it amends an act which relates to the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada. It is quite obvious that it is a consolidating statute in that it puts together the various sections that are in chapter 82 of the statutes of 1908, chapter 64 of the statutes of 1912, and chapter 96 of the statutes of 1929. Can the hon. member indicate, either on clause 1, or on the appropriate clauses as we come to them, wherein there are any amendments?
As you, Mr. Chairman, pointed out on a previous occasion, a bill before this house is supposed to have on the righthand pages an indication of the changes that are being made. The righthand pages of this bill are all blank.

Can the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont indicate which clauses involve amendments?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not know if I get the remarks of my hon. friend aright. Would he like me to indicate to him the changes in the original charter? That would be difficult to do because I have a note here that it is a consolidation, but the numbers of the paragraphs do not follow each other. It is pretty hard to indicate them in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it more than just a rearranging of the existing statutes? Is that all there is to it, or does it make some changes of substance?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No new powers are asked for in this bill. The membership is the same, the name is the same. I shall give some details to my hon. friend which may satisfy him. There are no special details to be given except to say that the bill indicates the importance of the institute. It enumerates the associations which will compose the institute. Since the last charter a few additional provincial associations have been added. It establishes the conditions under which the council of the institute can pass rules and regulations. In the original bill there were some conditions under which the council could pass rules and regulations but I would say that the conditions have been improved in this bill. The conditions are outlined under which the association can own property. The membership is the same; the name is the same. There are no important changes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is satisfactory. I take it that in the main it is a consolidating act, although there are a few changes in view of the fact there are a few more associations in the country.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 349, respecting Sharp & Dohme (Canada) Ltd.-Mr. Mcllraith.
William Alfred Robinson: There are a number of
divorce bills before the committee. Is it agreed that they be dealt with as one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many are there, Mr. Chairman?


William Alfred Robinson: I can give the numbers: 196 to 231; 233 to 241; 246 to 255; 264 to 277; 286 to 302; 308 to 327; 329 to 348, all inclusive.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My arithmetic makes that a total of 126 bills.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed that they be taken as one?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Olga Maikow-ski Hocaloski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Mary Evelyn Martinson Ross.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of Donald Muir Langton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Albert Ritchot.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Annie Esther Vetter Meister.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Carmen Lister Lees.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Dawn Elsie Coles Ekers Bowen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Marion Murray Redburn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Anna Pearl Lingo DesMarais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Phyllis Geraldine Brown McLean.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Eva Lilly Ware Deslauriers.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Agnes Rose McKiernan Popadick.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Rosalind Elaine Beinhaker Katz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Louis Kenneth Laurin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Eva Amelia Richardson Keyton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Francois-Xavier Lange.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Aline Pelland Myre.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Roscoe Winston Percy Soule.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of June Patricia Potter Cashman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Paul-Emile Roland Boisclair.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Kathleen Swanson Butler.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Freda Lutsky Perzow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Susie Earle Young.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Joseph Willie Walter Stonehouse.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Alexander Jakobszak.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Margaret Thomson Kelso Midlick.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Pansy Joy Cowen Kirby.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Isabel Taylor Page Kingsley.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Dorothy Win-nifred Patricia Lawson Disken.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Annie Kofman Liebman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Harry Elsworth Allton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Desire Cherry Szabo.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	228,	for	the	relief	of	William
Edward Shanassy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	229,	for	the	relief	of	Fernand
Seguin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	230,	for	the	relief of	Joanna
Florence Ritchie Leinonen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Joseph Teles-phore Origene Dragon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	233,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Katherine Beattie Gunston.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 234, for the relief of Ellis Hamilton. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Joan Shirley Davies Marchand-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Joseph Leon Gilles D'Avignon-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Mary Ritchie Fleming Benjamin-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Doris Wagner Arkin-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Lena Robi-taille Barre-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Antonio Michetti-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Joseph Andre Roland Roy-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Ida Rose Amyot White-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Anne Gorin Seward-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of George Daniel van der Beek-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Rhoda Beatrice Cree Denis-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Roma Gisser Baron-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	251,	for	the	relief	of	Marie-
Angeline Delledonne Salotti-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Mary Black Guthrie-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	253,	for	the	relief	of	Albert
Menard-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	254,	for	the	relief	of	Patricia
Galley Berger-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Elizabeth Glencross Marcoux-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Lorraine Bella Spegel Weisberg-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	265,	for	the	relief	of	Frances
Kellerman Rappoport-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Eleanor Grace Jones Graham-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Gabrielle Dallaire Boulet-Mr. Hunter.
3310	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Phyllis Elizabeth Warner Collins-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Margaret Gwendoline Turner Williams-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Mary Ferguson Wynter-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Sheila Winni-fred Richardson Hiscock-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Anne Roitman Aronovitch-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Kathleen Gertrude King Laffin-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	274,	for	the	relief	of	Gardner
Hinckley Prescott-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Ethel Cope Veary-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	276,	for	the	relief	of	Gordon
Stewart Norris-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	277,	for	the	relief	of	Lucille
Grenier Desjardins-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	286,	for	the	relief	of	Joseph
Alexandre Roland Simard-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Winnifred Blanche Brook McGurk-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Gitel Shepsel Moscovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Susan Frosst Cohen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Norma Constance Parsons Lindsey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Erna Reiter Kastelberger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Nickola Boch-na, otherwise known as Nicholas Bockan.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Robert Fraser Callahan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Ruth Barsuk Cohen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Bernice Noble Comm.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Francis Ambrose Higgins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Elizabeth Coyle Ellis Gibbons.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Blanche Mary Shurge Labelle.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Beatrice Teressa Mathewson Connell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Joyce Hilda Street Janson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Joyce Gertrude Haworth Rawlings.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Jean Eudes Deschenes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Isidore Tremblay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Doris Lydia Kimber Keller.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Letitia MacDonald Lanz.-Mr. Hunter.
[The Chairman.]

Bill No. 311, for the relief of Kurth Sauer.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Marie Blanche Dionne Krysko.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Edna Florence Helen Dawson Smith.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Eldora Mary Mills Pope.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Roberta Margaret Gilpin Chadsey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Anne Wahl Ryshpan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Marian Toba Wolfe Cohen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Bernice Elizabeth Lunan Day.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Ross Harold Becker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Marie Anna Migneault Cloutier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Maria Camko Kowalew.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Martin Yvon Blais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Margaret Moffatt Wilkie Johnson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Winnifred Herbert Chapman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Rocco Aldo Amaedeo Mastrocola.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Marie Mae Seguin Le Moyne.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Amy Joyce Markham King.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Maureen Demers Kezber.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Eva Levine Shapiro.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 331, for the relief of Rejane Pla-mondon Levine.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 332, for the relief of Marie Irma Marquette Lalonde.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 333, for the relief of Marion Tannenbaum Rabow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 334, for the relief of Walter Williamson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 335, for the relief of Eileen Beatrice Sloan Douglas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 336, for the relief of Madelyn Jane Picard Gilbert.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 337, for the relief of George James Marshall.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 338, the relief of Luigi Martellino, otherwise known as Louis Martellino.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of Bernice Balinsky Friedman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Rose Marie Lescarbeau Deschenes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 341, for the relief of Florence Aleatha Geraldine Hamilton Gardner.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 342, for the relief of Mary Veronica Hamilton Campbell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Aba Awner. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Sinclair Peterkin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Sybil Lavine Markowitz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 346, for the relief of Gabriel Bois-clair.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 347, for the relief of Betty Weiner Schwartz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Lili Gourd Lajeunesse.-Mr. Hunter.



WINNIPEG AND ST. BONIFACE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS CONSOLIDATION OF EXISTING STATUTES

Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 285, respecting the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is not unlike the purpose of the bill passed a few moments ago, which was presented to the house by the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets). This bill merely consolidates three existing statutes so that the legislation respecting the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners may be found all in one place.
As I have had occasion to point out earlier this session, this legislation was passed first back in 1912, the original Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act being chapter 55 of the statutes of that year. That original statute was amended by chapter 17 of the statutes of 1938, the main purpose of that amendment being to make it possible for some of the other municipalities in the Winnipeg area to have representation on this board. The other amendment was made this session by chapter 6 of the statutes of 1955. As hon. members will recall, the effect of that amendment was to provide that the quorum for meetings of the board should be a majority rather than the larger number under the formula as it stood in the original act.
The bill now before the house in my name makes absolutely no change in the legislation; it does not change a jot or a tittle; it simply brings the three enactments together in one piece of legislation.
As all of us know, about every 25 years there is what is known as a revision of the statutes of Canada, but it so happens that every time that chore is undertaken there are quite a number of statutes not revised, not consolidated and not brought forward. In some cases the reason is quite clear, in that
29, 1955	3311
Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour the usefulness of the statute has diminished or perhaps a statute is spent. In other cases even though the statute may still be in effect those doing the revising do not bring it forward. That is what happened with respect to the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act.
There have been two revisions of the statutes since 1912, the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927 and the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, but on neither of those occasions was this legislation consolidated. This means that those who are interested in the legislation respecting the harbour of Winnipeg and St. Boniface have to delve into the statute books of three different years, 1912, 1938 and 1955.
As I have said before, it is not a matter of world-shaking importance that these statutes be put in one place, but it does seem to be a matter of logic and common sense, and certainly it is a matter of convenience for those who have occasion to refer to this basic charter or constitution providing for the operations of this board.
As I have indicated on other occasions, the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commission is a body with a good deal of work to which it must attend. The harbour of Winnipeg and St. Boniface does not compare with some of the other harbours in Canada, but as I indicated by giving figures on March 17 there is a fair amount of shipping at the Alexander avenue wharf in this harbour, which happens to be located in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre.
I might also point out that the members of this board have been quite busy during the past 12 months. There has come before them a number of applications for the laying of pipe lines under both the Red and the Assiniboine rivers. In some cases the pipe lines have been for gas, in some cases for oil, in some cases for telephone trunk lines and in some cases for water distribution.
They have also had to deal with the preparations for the building of the mid-town bridge which crosses the Assiniboine river at the foot of Donald street, connecting the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) with the constituency of my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor). The board has also had something to do with the borings in connection with the preliminary tests at the site of the proposed Disraeli bridge which is to cross the Red river in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre.
I indicate these activities merely to point out that this legislation is not the dead letter that it seems to be considered when it is left
3312	HOUSE OF
Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour as a statute of 1912, the amendments to which can be found only by searching the statutes of 1938 and 1955. It is for that reason that it seems to me to be a matter of convenience, logic and fairness to those concerned to have this legislation put into the one place.
As hon. members would expect, I have had some advice in connection with the preparation of this bill. The legal advice I have had is that this is the way to put all this legislation in one place and have it as a statute with legal effect. One can do this sort of thing by having the department print what is known as an office consolidation, but as everyone knows an office consolidation does not have the legal standing which is accorded to a statute passed by parliament.
On previous occasions when I have suggested that this be done it has been argued from the government side that it should not be considered for various reasons. It has been suggested that if it is done for this particular legislation it will have to be done for other legislation. I do not see that that is a very strong argument. It was contended also that it would be perfectly satisfactory to leave it the way it was. I admit readily that there would be no substantial loss if the legislation were left in the three places where it now is, but it seems to me that for the sake of tidying up things, for the sake of convenience, and as recognition of a good job which the members of this board do in the Winnipeg area-and they do it on a voluntary basis-the house might consent to the passing of this bill.
In conclusion I emphasize, as I did at the first, that it does not change anything. It just takes the three statutes to which I have referred and puts them together in a consolidated form, so that the legislation respecting the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners might be found all in one place.


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the sponsor of this bill, concerning that part of his remarks dealing with the historical background of the statutory provisions concerning the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commission. I wish also to state that his interest and the interest of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau), who also discussed this bill with me, in the activities of this harbour commission are very much appreciated by our department.
However, without going into a detailed study of the various sections of this bill, I wish to point out some of its effects. As hon. members know, the bill creates a new commission, and the existing corporation consequently disappears without providing for


maintaining the continuity of the present corporation. On the other hand, the existing act describes the harbour of Winnipeg and St. Boniface as comprising in part all the waters within the limits of the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface as they existed at the time of the passing of the original act, that is on 1st April, 1912. The present bill describes the harbour as comprising all the waters within the limits of the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface at the time of its passing, and this might have the effect of increasing or decreasing the limits of the present harbour, according to changes which might have taken place in the limits of both these cities since 1912.
Under the original act the harbour includes also such municipalities as were brought within the provisions of the act under section 4 as amended in 1938. These words are repeated in the present bill, but the effect is that the harbour would not indeed include the municipalities that were brought within the provisions of the present act. I wish also to add that the bill provides for the appointment of commissioners and that if the present act is repealed, the question arises whether or not the existing commissioners have ceased to hold office and whether also there must be new appointments. As hon. members know, it is customary in consolidating a statute of this kind to insert a transitional provision to ensure continuity of office but, of course, not beyond the terms of the existing tenures. The same remarks apply with respect to harbourmasters and other staff.
The present act also provides for the payment of the surplus profits to municipalities that have been brought under the provisions of the act as amended in 1938. As I have previously indicated, the present act includes all municipalities brought in under section 4 and, I repeat, as amended in 1938. The effect of repealing section 4 of the present act and replacing it, as the sponsor of this bill does, by an identical wording in the new bill would be to deprive of their share of the profits the municipalities brought in under the old act.
Furthermore, a similar problem arises in connection with clause 16 of the present act, dealing with the inspection of the books of the corporation by the audit departments of the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface and other municipalities brought in under the existing provisions; that is section 4 of the act.
Furthermore, I am informed by the drafting experts of the Department of Justice that the bill does not conform in all respects to the practices, as to language, form, and punctuation, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952. I am further advised that if the consolidation is made it would be desirable

to make it uniform with the revised statutes. It is to be noted that it is not the intention of the sponsor of this bill, as he admitted a moment ago in speaking on second reading, to make any change in the existing statutory provisions, and therefore this is a private measure promoted as a matter of convenience only. For this reason the bill might be considered to be superfluous.
Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances, though I recognize that a consolidation might be desirable, I regret that I have to oppose the measure.


Mr. Fernand Viau (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of St. Boniface, the city which has been concerned with this matter since 1912, in respect of having two commissioners as members of the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commission, and also following what I was asked by the commissioners last year and again a few months ago to bring to this house-an amendment affecting the quorum of this corporation-I was surprised indeed to read in full the bill submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asking for the consolidation of the acts respecting the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commission.
If one would read the words pronounced in this house in 1912 and in 1938-mostly in 1912-when an application was made to this house for the establishment of the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commission, one would find that the trade on the Red river was from two points in the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface alone.
Later on, in the amendment which was introduced here in 1938, it was requested that the new municipalities contiguous to both cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface but lying along the Red river could on application elect a representative to this commission. But if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had read carefully the bill asking for the formation of a Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commission he would have noticed that the amendment of 1938 would include the municipalities contiguous to the city of Winnipeg or the city of St. Boniface, whose limits were lying along the Red river.
There is a contradiction there between the two sections because, after all, the powers of the commission cover all waters within both cities. That takes in the Assiniboine river, the Seine river and, of course, the Red river which, at the time of the introduction of the bill in 1912, was the main trading route from the United States of America up to lake Winnipeg. The amendment of 1938 refers to all municipalities contiguous to the city of Winnipeg or the city of St. Boniface. They
29, 1955	3313
Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour already have the power to elect a representative on the commission, but in view of the wording of the act it would only mean the municipalities of St. Vital, Fort Garry, East Kildonan and West Kildonan, which are the only municipalities contiguous both to the city of Winnipeg and the city of St. Boniface.
On the other hand, if you take all municipalities lying along the Red river it would include St. James and the town of Tuxedo on the west side and North Kildonan and Springfield on the east side. Their powers would cover that portion of the Red river between the northern and the southern boundaries of each respective municipality to the centre point of the Red river. With the act as it stands I do not see how the municipalities of Tuxedo, St. James and North Kildonan could have the area within the northern and southern boundaries of their municipalities running to the centre line of the Red river become part of the territory under the jurisdiction of the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commission.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is not a consolidation of the acts that should have been requested but a full revision of the statutes as they now stand. For that reason I oppose the bill for the time being.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite understand the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. As I read the introductory words of the bill, it is an act to consolidate the acts respecting the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member who introduced the bill and to the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken. I cannot see where his argument comes into the picture, and I would refer him to clause 4 of the bill which is very definite. It says:
4. (1) For the purposes of this act, the harbour of Winnipeg and St. Boniface shall be deemed to include all the waters within the limits of the cities of Winnipeg and St. Boniface at the time of the passing of this act and of such municipalities as may be brought within the provisions of this act under subsection 2 hereof.
Subclause 2 is very definite, and I am afraid my hon. friend ignored it. It reads:
(2) With the consent of any municipality, expressed by bylaw of the council thereof, the waters within such municipality may be added to the harbour by a bylaw to that effect made by the corporation and confirmed by the governor in council and published in the Canada Gazette.


Fernand Viau: Would the hon. member look at subclause (g) of section 3?


Harold Edward Winch: I would say that adds to my argument.


Fernand Viau: Oh, no.
3314	HOUSE OF
Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour


Harold Edward Winch: I would certainly think so. It reads:
(K) "municipality" means a municipality contiguous to the city of Winnipeg or the city of St. Boniface, and lying along the Red river, and any such municipality shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to include within its limits that portion of the Red river between such municipality and the centre line of the said river and between the productions respectively of the northerly and southerly boundaries of the said municipality from the points of intersection of the said boundaries with the said river to the points of intersection of the productions of the said boundaries with the centre line of the said river.
In my interpretation that is still governed by subclause 2 of clause 4, "with the consent of any municipality". Under subclause (g) of clause 3 you have a certain definition, but under subclause 2 of clause 4 it appears that the consent of the municipality is required, expressed by bylaw of the council thereof, and so on. With those points in mind, quite honestly I cannot see that this bill involves anything more than a consolidation of the acts. There are no new points, no new principles. It is just a consolidation for the sake of efficiency, as the mover said.


Fernand Viau: Would the hon. member answer my question? What are the municipalities contiguous to the city of Winnipeg and the city of St. Boniface whose northern and southern boundaries lie along the Red river?


Harold Edward Winch: I come back to subclause 2 of clause 4, where it says that consent is required of any municipality with respect to anything affecting waters within the municipality. I would say it is absolute protection. I should like to ask the hon. member to explain what he means if he thinks there is no protection there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether we are in committee, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: As the minister knows, we are not; but the bill seems to be highly technical and the argument that was being put forward by the hon. member was one in which I suppose he had to refer to one or two sections. But I think the hon. member has completed his remarks now. Is the house ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks how, he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Although the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) naturally could not be as familiar with the geography of the Winnipeg area as is the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Viau) and as I am myself, nevertheless I think he has answered the questions asked by the hon. member for


St. Boniface. As I understand the wording of the legislation now on the statute books, the only municipalities that meet the definition. and therefore can participate in the activities of the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners are municipalities which meet two conditions. They must be contiguous either to the city of Winnipeg or the city of St. Boniface, and they must lie along the Red river. If the hon. member for St. Boniface agrees with me, as I think he does, and if what he means by his argument is that any error in the legislation is not in my bill but is in the legislation already on the statute books, of course he is free to bring in a bill to amend what is already there.
I am interested in these arguments to the effect that one of the things wrong with my bill is that it does not make any changes in the existing legislation. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, or anyone else, to guess what the argument would have been if my bill had changed one jot or one tittle of the existing legislation. I would have been told that as a private member I was trying to change the government's legislation. All I am trying to do is to get the government to vote for its own legislation, but because the bill is brought in with the name of an opposition member on the front of it-


J. G. Léopold Langlois: That is not the
reason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -it seems to be having a difficult time. My hon. friends on the other side quote legal advice they have obtained. I have obtained legal advice, too, from sources that are open to all of us as members of parliament. The advice given to me is not quite the same as the advice that apparently has been given to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. I am advised that a consolidating statute of this kind, since it is entitled a consolidating statute, does not, even though it repeals statutes that are already there and replaces them by this one, abolish any body that is now in existence or infringe upon any rights that have been established by legislation as from the date it was first put on the statute books.
However, if the lawyers who give this conflicting advice cannot get together as to the best form in which to write a consolidating act, it would be very simple to let the bill have second reading and send it to one of the committees of this house. In order to cover all objections, a saving clause could be put in the bill.
I will say this for my hon. friend's argument, that in the bill consolidating the amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act which is before parliament at the present

time, there is such a saving clause which makes sure that the present commission is continued. The same sort of saving clause could be put in this bill. My legal adviser said it was not necessary. My hon. friend's legal adviser said it was necessary. It is not a matter over which to debate. Surely if the basic purpose of this bill, namely convenience, is a desirable objective and is accepted, this point could be met by giving the bill second reading and sending it to a committee where the point could be considered.
The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport states that some of this 1912 wording is not the kind of wording of which the Department of Transport approves in 1955. I am not so sure that the wording of some of the statutes introduced in 1955 is so very clear, but I will admit the point that since 1912 there has been some change in wording in the matter of drafting legislation. Again I just ask anyone in this house the question, what sort of response would my bill have obtained if I had tried to change the wording to bring it up to date? In fact, if the department feels now that some of the wording should be changed, it would be a very simple matter to agree to the bill in principle-a principle which is very clear, just to consolidate what is there-and then make any changes in wording that might seem desirable when the bill is before the committee.
If these suggestions as to ways of dealing with the matter do not commend themselves to my hon. friends opposite, then of course there is another way they can deal with the matter. They can introduce a bill themselves that would put all this legislation in one place.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to point out that in my view we in the parliament of Canada do lack something in this respect which they have in the parliament of the United Kingdom. I had occasion to refer to this in connection with a point of order a few days ago, but I am sure Your Honour will agree that it is relevant to this bill which has as its purpose the consolidating of certain statutes.
There is on the statute books of the United Kingdom what is known as the consolidation of enactments (procedure) act, 1949, which is chapter 33 of the statutes of 1949. The purpose of this statute is to meet this very point, to make it possible for acts which get amended from time to time, and which get scattered all through the statute books, to be consolidated and put through parliament expeditiously. I invite those who are interested in procedural matters of this kind to
29, 1955	3315
Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour read chapter 33 of the United Kingdom statutes of 1949. It will be noted that the responsibility for agreeing that a bill is just a consolidation, making only minor changes in wording such as have been suggested by my hon. friend, rests with the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons- in other words, in our terminology, with the two Speakers of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
If those two gentlemen are satisfied that a bill which has been introduced as a consolidating bill does only that, just consolidates and does not make any changes, then there is a streamlined procedure by which the bill, after notice has been posted in the London Gazette for a required length of time, is referred to a committee without debate. It is possible for it to go through parliament without parliament having to debate all the clauses of the bill.
I know that one of the reasons the government does not like to introduce consolidating bills is that it could have, as I think it does have, the effect of opening up all the clauses, at least once you get into committee. As I say, that point has been met in the United Kingdom by this special statute. I think some day the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), whom I see in the house, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill), whose interest in this matter I appreciate, might look at this statute to see if it would not be a good idea to have a similar one here.
I am not arguing anything that could be called partisan in any sense at all. I am just suggesting something that could result in tidying up our bits of legislation so they would be easier to find. I invite the members of the cabinet to study this procedure that is made possible by chapter 33 of the United Kingdom statutes of 1949.
We have not got that here, Mr. Speaker. There are only two ways in which our statutes can be consolidated. One is by the revision that takes place about every 25 years. We all welcome that. It was good to get the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952 and to feel that we had most of the laws of Canada in about five or six volumes instead of in 50 or more. The other way is by introducing a new bill which could go through all the stages of legislation in parliament, but which in the end would have the effect this bill of mine would have, of consolidating the various enactments into one statute.


Mr. Garson:: I wonder if my hon. friend would permit a question? In this research he has made into the British practice, did he discover that in relation to their acts which deal with their various harbour commissions they

Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour follow the same practice we do in Canada of leaving them out of a general revision, as being separate statutes dealing with local matters? Did he find that, for this reason, they as public local acts were not revised generally in the same manner that the general body of public general acts are? Did he find that was the practice that was followed in Great Britain as well as in Canada?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I found that in some instances they fell into one category and in some into another. In some instances they are regarded as private in nature and in other instances, as I think in this case, as rather public. The point I am making is that in the United Kingdom, in addition to the revision such as takes place here every 25 years, they have this arrangement whereby between revisions acts can be consolidated in what May and Campion refer to as a very expeditious manner. I am sure it must appeal to the government, because it avoids the possibility of extended debate.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question? Did my hon. friend find in examining this procedure which has been followed in Great Britain, that it has, in fact, been applied to their harbour commissioners acts?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I cannot say that I found it was applied to legislation exactly comparable to what is now before us.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask my hon. friend if he is aware that this practice in Canada has been applied to all the harbour commission acts, and that none of them has been consolidated? There are, as my hon. friend knows, quite a number of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that. I was hoping that I was doing what I have often called upon the government to do, namely to give a good lead. The fact that those acts respecting Toronto, New Westminster and other places around the country are in the same unconsolidated, all over the place condition is no reason why the job should not be done there, too.
If we had something comparable to the consolidation of enactments (procedure) act, 1949, of the United Kingdom, this matter could be taken care of very easily. I do not know why I should be the person pointing to this practice in the United Kingdom. I am giving the government an idea how to avoid some of the debates that now take place in the House of Commons, when all that is desired is a job of consolidation.
Nevertheless I suggest that what I am proposing is in the interests of tidying things up and making things a little neater and a little easier to find. So far as this immediate bill


is concerned, in addition to this general interest in tidiness and convenience I also have the interest that I would like to see recognized the good work that the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commissioners do in our area, which is done on a voluntary basis.
I hope the government will see fit to support the measure.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before the hon. member takes his seat would he permit another question? Would he not think that a relatively short and simple statute, and its amendments, such as the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act, could, in an office consolidation form, provide all the services that the printed statutes usually provide, without being consolidated in the manner he is now advocating?


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask why it is that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who tried to stop me, is not trying to stop somebody else who is asking twice as many questions as I did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I answer the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I think in his opening remarks on the bill the hon. member indicated what would be the answer to the question. If he wishes to have some amplification, he will note that I am showing some leniency, because this is private bills hour.


Harold Edward Winch: But don't let him get away with it on his side of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not particularly like the remark the hon. member for Vancouver East has made because, as he knows, hon. members are entitled to ask questions.	.


Harold Edward Winch: That is right; and I want to say that you are most fair. It was the minister I was referring to.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, that does not make it much better.
I think all hon. members will agree that throughout the debate on the second reading of this bill it has looked, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said, like a debate in committee. Once the hon. member has answered the question I think we should conclude the discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are now back at the point where the Minister of Justice asked one more question before, as he said, I took my seat. He asked whether for the purpose of legislation of this kind, which he described as being rather short-though I would point out it does have 29 sections and there would be 30 if this bill were put through-it would not be

just as satisfactory to have an office consolidation. My reply to him is that an office consolidation would of course be better than having no office consolidation, and certainly better than the present situation where legislation can be found only by reference to the statutes of three different years.
So far as what the minister is saying is concerned, I can tell him that the members of the Winnipeg and St. Boniface harbour commission now have copies of Bill 285, so they have what, in effect, is a printing which shows the various sections put together. If the department would make a departmental office consolidation that would be even better for that purpose. But I believe, as I said when I closed my speech about ten minutes ago, that the work these commissioners do merits the consideration that I suggest should be given to them by the passing of this bill.


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


J. G. Léopold Langlois: On a question of
privilege, a few moments ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said I had stated that the 1912 wording was not clear. That is not what I said. I said that the wording of his bill did not conform with the practices as to language and punctuation as adopted in the Revised Statutes of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, the wording in this bill conforms to this government legislation as it now stands on the statute books.


James Sinclair: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The debate that took place on second reading of this bill should not, in future, be considered a prototype for discussion that should take place on the second reading of a bill.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Knowles) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The business reserved for this hour having been dealt with, the house at eight o'clock will resume consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.
29, 1955	3317
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION 59. Departmental administration, $493,651.


William Alfred Robinson: It being six o'clock I do leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were discussing resolution 59. Shall this resolution carry?


Ambrose A. Holowach: At five o'clock I had commenced to make a few remarks about the treatment which was being given to newly born Canadian children whose parents as immigrants were denied family allowance benefits during their first year of residence in Canada. I know this is a sensitive point with many hundreds of thousands of new immigrants in our country. It must be remembered by the committee that these same people are future Canadian citizens. When we remember that as soon as an immigrant arrives in our country he becomes a taxpayer, and when we consider that during his first months and years in Canada every single cent counts in becoming properly established, I believe it will be agreed that this matter deserves some consideration by the minister and by the committee.
As I understand it, the situation which exists at present is rather unfair and unrealistic. At the present time the legal status of a child born in Canada, irrespective of the citizenship of its parents, is that such a child is a Canadian by birth. However, during the first year of residence of the child's parents in Canada such a Canadian child is denied the benefits which parliament provided in the matter of family allowances. If this interpretation is correct, and if the situation is as I understand it, it is rather paradoxical. On the one hand we have such a child born to newly arrived immigrants looked upon in the eyes of the law as a Canadian by birth; on the other hand that child is denied the benefits provided by the family allowance legislation during the first year of residence.
I was just wondering about the fairness of the situation. I would certainly appreciate it if the minister would explain the problem. I know that if we were able to eliminate that situation it would certainly be conducive to better relations between new arrivals in
3318	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration our country and Canadians. I touch briefly on this subject because I believe it is important. The situation should be remedied and I believe it will help to preserve happy relations among all segments of our Canadian society. I also believe it will show the new arrivals that we are concerned and would like to have them properly established when they arrive in Canada.
In conclusion, I should just like to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the splendid co-operation he has given to me on several occasions, and that statement also applies to the various officials in his department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member would like me to say just a word on that point right now, I shall do so. It is, of course, a question of policy. The present law is so framed that anyone born in Canada receives family allowance just as soon as his parents apply, even though the parents may not have been here, I understand, more than a week. But if he was born a week before he arrived in Canada, his mother would not be able to get the allowance for a year.
In the administration of the Immigration Act we recognize what an anomaly this is in many cases. On the other hand, if my recollection is right-and I know my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare will correct me if it is not-I think the reason it was felt that there must be some time limit was in order to avoid the possibility of people coming here, perhaps for their summer holidays or other brief periods, and collecting family allowances while they were here. There are some complications about the question. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare who has the primary responsibility in this matter has been giving it extremely careful consideration.
(Translation):


Mr. Villeneuve:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to avail myself of this debate on the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to call the attention of the minister (Mr. Pickersgill) to a matter which worries me greatly at present, namely the matter of education at Pointe Bleue in the constituency I have the honour of representing in this house.
The Indian reserve at Pointe Bleue dates back about a hundred years. Today it has a population of some 1,125 people, making up 200 families, of which 110 are sedentary residents and 90 are nomads. In the reserve there are at present 272 children of school age; 110 attending the local Indian school, 28 the residential school at Fort George, while


5 go to other Indian schools, 55 attend provincial schools and 74 are not going to school at all.
The matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the department, has to do with nomad Indians. As those Indian families leave for the hunt in the fall and return only the following spring, some 100 Indian children of school age cannot attend school and therefore receive no education whatever.
Now the Indians of Pointe Bleue are becoming more and more sedentary. Besides, the majority of them are now in that category. However, children whose parents go out into the woods during the hunting season are deprived of the education to which they are entitled.
It is not a matter of preventing parents from taking their children with them when they go out hunting, but of encouraging them to let their children attend school in the reserve. I see only one way of doing it. As a matter of fact, after investigating the situation on the spot at the beginning of last month, together with the Pointe Bleue authorities, I have come to the conclusion that a residential school large enough to accommodate 120 pupils would be the only adequate solution to this problem, now or in the future. Since our Indians are ever desirous of living normally, they should be given that opportunity and should be provided for that purpose with every possible means of acquiring the education they need to earn a living.
If these children were placed in residential boarding schools while their parents are away hunting during the winter, they would receive a normal education which would enable them to face up successfully to the problem of earning their living. Indians, like all of us, are entitled to a better future.
If I am defending their interests here, it is because I know that these children of school age, being sent in this way to a residential institution would enjoy normal schooling, in every way comparable to that of the children of sedentary families who attend the local day schools. My attention has always been drawn to the fact that the problems affecting the Indians are often the result of deeds done by white people who took advantage of special circumstances to teach them ways of life which are foreign to them.
I urge the minister to consider my request with all the attention it deserves and to try to solve the problem by 1956 at the latest.
Building a residential school or boarding school for the children of wandering Indian families at Pointe Bleue would constitute an adequate solution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Roberval has already brought the case to my attention and we hope to be able to grant the request in the near future.
(Text):


William McLean Hamilton: That
is the best thing the minister has said in a month.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with one or two matters, particularly one which was dealt with this afternoon in an exchange between the hon. member for Kamloops and the minister. I refer to the speech the minister made at Victoria some weeks ago, which obtained for him a degree of publicity which, as he said in Winnipeg, could not have been achieved otherwise. I am not going to repeat what was allegedly said on that occasion; I am simply going to take the words of the minister when he rose on a question of privilege on April 18, as reported at page 2893 of Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent the situation. I rose to reply to a question asked by his leader; I rose on no question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly that is correct, but the exchange is entitled "Privilege". The minister had this to say:
We all want to increase the population of this country and for that purpose if they are equally good people I don't believe that any immigrant, no matter where he comes from or how good he is, is as good as another Canadian baby, because the immigrant has to learn to be a Canadian and the baby is a Canadian to start with.
The minister made a further enlargement of that when he spoke a few nights ago in Windsor. At that time he gave a revised version applicable to the occasion, and among other things he said:
And that's all I was trying to say in Victoria when I said that, in order to increase the population of Canada, I didn't believe an immigrant was as good as a Canadian baby, if both of them were equally good people.
That was indeed a repetition of the remarks allegedly made by the minister during his recent visit to the Pacific coast. Immediately prior to having said what I have just quoted the minister said-and I think I should quote this in fairness to him

Now if we are going to go on being Canadians and go on preserving our Canadian characteristics, this country cannot be just a half-way house for people coming from other lands, staying for a few years or maybe a generation, and then moving on to the United States.
A little later he made this unusual statement:
And I am sure all of you who were not born in Canada know how much easier it is for your own children, whether they were bom here or
29, 1955	3319
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration whether they were very young when they came here, to learn the ways of the country than it was for those of you who had to learn to be Canadians while you were also trying to earn a living.
That is why I also said, in a joking way, that the best immigration policy was the cradle.
In large measure that is a repetition of the remarks the minister allegedly made in Victoria, to which editorial writers have been devoting themselves. That is not a statement in keeping with the minister's responsibility as minister of immigration. It is a statement which cannot be laughed off. No matter what the jocularity of the occasion may have been, the statement carries with it a gratuitous if not bumptious insult to millions of good Canadians.
I think the minister should be doing what he ought to have done in view of the feeling that was aroused as a result of the statement made in Victoria; he should have apologized for the remarks he made, rather than follow the course he did of endeavouring to laugh off the serious import inherent in those words. As a matter of fact I think the Prime Minister, as first citizen of our country, in a parliamentary way should have repudiated and disavowed those statements by the minister, in their original form as well as in the restricted or renewed or revised version that we have had since. -
It was a statement which divides Canadians into those who were born here and those who came here having chosen this country as the land in which they desire to live, as the land to which freedom beckoned them. I feel that in his position as minister of immigration the hon. gentleman has done irreparable injury to the position he occupies, in view of the fact that his duties in large part consist of encouraging people in other countries, who are desirable and selected, to come to this country.
I am not going to say any more than that. When I read the statement I was surprised, but I was more surprised when the minister gave his explanation in Winnipeg that after all if he had said something reasonable or rational he would not have secured the publicity and advertising which he obtained because this statement had been attributed to him.
Having said that, I now want to refer to-


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman has finished that, he has a copy-I think the same copy as I have-of the speech I made in Windsor. Perhaps he would not mind reading the next paragraph on page 5, paragraph 3.
3320	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John George Diefenbaker: Page 5 says-and this is his speech delivered at Windsor on April 22, after several weeks of mental revision-
And the easier it is for the newcomers to fit into the country, the faster we can all get on with the task of building up the country. I say it is usually more difficult for a newcomer to become a Canadian than it is for a child brought up in this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the next two paragraphs. I am sure the hon. gentleman does not wish to misrepresent what I said. The next two paragraphs represent what I really did say. Surely the hon. gentleman is doing exactly what the hon. member for Kamloops did this afternoon, picking bits and pieces. I suggest that the hon. gentleman read the next two paragraphs, so they will not be separated in Hansard from what he has already read.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not in any way dealing with what the minister said the other evening. I am taking the same words he used in the House of Commons on April 18 when he explained what was unexplainable. This is his version of what he said on that occasion in Victoria:
We all want to increase the population of this country, and for that purpose if they are equally good people I don't believe that any immigrant, no matter where he comes from or how good he is, is as good as another Canadian baby, because the immigrant has to learn to be a Canadian and the baby is a Canadian to start with.
That is the revised version. That is the version given in the House of Commons. That is the one I am accepting. I simply say that if the hon. gentleman wants to read the entire speech he made the other evening, I have no objection. It is perfectly proper that he should. But I am relying for what I have to say upon the explanation given by the minister under the heading of privilege, which he said was not privilege, on April 18, which in no way removed the criticisms that were levied against him in reference to the remarks he made at Victoria. Having said that, I shall now pass-*


Mr. Mcllraiih:: And having not read all the quotation.	[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friend wants to read into the records of the house the revised version of April 22 I have no objection, but I am not relying on that. I am taking what the minister said on April 18. Those are his own words, and they are to all intents' and purposes as reprehensible as the words attributed to him at Victoria.
Having said that, I come to the other matters that were being- discussed this afternoon, that is the regulations and the application of those regulations by the department.


I think, however much the minister may endeavour to explain them away, the regulations are unjustifiable in their present form. They are interpreted according to the whim and caprice of the individual official. They bring about in consequence a denial of fundamental rights. They constitute in fact arbitrary lawlessness.
What we in the opposition are endeavouring to prove is this, and for some reason the minister stands firm against any such argument, that the regulations should be reasonably interpreted in a straightforward and uniform manner, that the regulations should not be in the custody of the individual officials to interpret in accordance with their whim or prejudice or bias or for any other improper reason; that these are the regulations upon which human rights are determined.
The court of appeal of Ontario has very definitely stated, in the case to which the hon. member for Kamloops made extended reference this afternoon, that these regulations are unfair and unjust in the manner in which they are applied and were applied in the particular case. Why should it be necessary under those circumstances to press the minister for just one admission on his part that where there is wrongdoing-and there is always wrongdoing when the arbitrary will of an individual can place itself above the law-where such a condition of affairs applies, it will be his aim to remove the discrimination that is now inherent in this legislation and ensure that there shall be equality and justice to every individual according to law.
My hon. friend says he is not satisfied with the judgment of a recent appointee of this government, Mr. Justice Wilson; that he is not satisfied when that judgment is unanimously approved by the court of appeal, on which there were two judges already named by my hon. friend the member for Kamloops, and as well a former minister in charge of immigration, who found those regulations unjustly and tyrannically applied in the case in question. Why does the minister, instead of relying on those principles which ordinarily should actuate him in removing injustice, contend that he wants to carry the case forward because he is not satisfied with the unanimous decision on appeal?
Certainly it is a serious situation, it is a shocking situation, when a department of government is found so derelict in the application of the law as it was in the case in question. The minister should have stood up and said, "Well, after all we cannot expect perfection. There was wrongdoing in this case, as found by the courts of the country and we are going to remove anything in the nature of an injustice". That should be the

attitude of a department whose purpose should be the equal administration of law, and justice and the fair application of the rules to everybody. But for some reason this department is becoming entangled in administrative red tape, in some cases administered -and I mention this after consideration-by sawdust Caesars who believe they are above the law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A sawdust Caesar.


John George Diefenbaker: Some men, when they secure positions, must necessarily grow into those positions. Woodrow Wilson once said, "A man with responsibility either grows or swells." Some of these officials have not been growing, and they have not grown since the judgments of these various courts have been given, judgments that point out unfairness, tyranny and autocratic superiority on the part of officials; judgments that have indicated that the position in the department of immigration is that we have officials making the regulations, policing the regulations, interpreting the regulations and enforcing the regulations.
It is because of that fact, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Kamloops has pressed so often for a restoration of those principles that British justice has shown through the generations are necessary for the preservation of the fundamental freedoms of the individual. After all, there are only two ways in which freedom can be maintained. One is through parliament, the supreme court, the superior court, the highest court of the realm. That is where an appeal is being made now to the man who represents this department, to restore to it those things which it -has found throughout the generations must be maintained if the rights of the individual are to be assured. The other is through the courts.
While, in the course of the administration of the department, the courts have been bypassed in many cases, where the courts have spoken the department has not been game enough to accept the decisions of the courts and has endeavoured to carry on and on from court to court. Why not remove the reasons for injustices that were set out by the Hon. Mr. Justice Aylesworth and those associated with him in the Ontario court of appeal? Why not remove those wrongs, those injustices, rather than deny their existence and appeal against the decision? If the Supreme Court of Canada should ever have the opportunity of dealing with that case and confirms the judgment, does the department then intend to pass an order in council to ratify what was illegally done?


Edmund Davie Fulton: They have done it before.
3321
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John George Diefenbaker: That was done before in the department of immigration and, Mr. Chairman, nothing better indicates stubborn truculence and autocratic lawlessness than the attitude of some departmental officials who, having lost in the courts, raise their decisions to a level above the courts by the passage of an order in council to legalize the unlawful. I do not say that in the course of administration of a department as large as the department of immigration small injustices will not arise from time to time. Human nature being what it is, they are bound to arise. But, sir, when a department has as its cornerstone the concept that where it is wrong it denies it, and where the courts find it is wrong it places itself above the courts by order in council, then indeed have you enthroned injustice; then indeed parliament has a right to speak.
I do ask the minister to reconsider what he said this afternoon, to decide that certain general principles are going to apply and that justice is going to be done as far as lies within the power of the minister. Fiat justitia. Let justice be done. That is all we ask from the minister. Let him accept such suggestions in the spirit in which they are given. Let him give the assurance that the department will bring into Canada by selective immigration those entitled to come here; and so that those in Canada will not be subject to deportation outside the law by the ipse dixit of some official who is above the law, we ask that the individual should be made acquainted with the charges against him. I do not suggest that he be given the names of the informants, but he should have placed before him the charges upon which the department believes he is not entitled to be considered a good Canadian citizen, in order that he may be able to answer those charges.
If that is not done, are we going back to the days of the star chamber where appointees of the crown sat, made their decisions and placed themselves above the law? That is my main criticism of the department of immigration today. I do not lay the slightest personal wrongdoing at the feet of the minister. But I do say that the minister, having inherited the department and having had seven or eight months to clear away these wrongs- and they are wrongs-we have a right to ask today, "What have you done? Why have you not acted? What is the reason that equity and law have been pushed aside and the arbitrary say-so of an individual in a department has been placed above the law of the land?"
3322	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I think, sir, erf what Lord Chesterfield said 125 years ago, so applicable to what is happening today in the department of unmigration. These are his words:
Let us consider that arbitary power has seldom or never been introduced into any country at once. It must be introduced by slow degrees, and, as it were, step by step lest the people should see its approach. The barriers and fences of the people's liberty must be plucked one by one, and some plausible pretence must be found for removing or hoodwinking, one after another, those sentries who are posted by the constitution of a free country for warning the people of their danger.
What are the sentries? The sentries are the rule of law, equity under the law, the right of an individual not to be convicted in his absence, the right of a person charged to know the nature of the charge against him. Remove these safeguards, destroy these sentries and, Mr. Chairman, every country's history tells its story. This is as true today as it was 175 years ago when Lord Acton said: "All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Lord Acton was not born 175 years ago.


John George Diefenbaker: I bow to my hon. friend. I am glad that is the only thing he has been able to deny in the course of my entire speech. Of course the minister is entirely correct. I overstated it by 50 years and the minister immediately noticed it, which indicates that his historical erudition is not going to be lost to the House of Commons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish it were matched by his sense of justice.


John George Diefenbaker: Nonetheless the principle remains. Today we have in the department of immigration individuals who administer the immigration law of the country, who have absolute power; and when the courts endeavour to control that power they have been known to raise themselves above the power of the courts and, by order in council, to treat with disdain and contempt the decisions of the courts.
That is the kind of thing that should be stopped. That is the kind of thing that members on all sides of the house should stand against, for if we condone it in one department we condone a principle that is dangerous to the survival of the parliamentary and judicial system.
In all sincerity I say that since my hon. friend has been minister he has given wide consideration, very comprehensive consideration to his department. So far as parliament is concerned, when questions have been asked they have been answered by him. I say to the minister that he is an example to some of the other members of this cabinet.


If questions are asked involving his department, an order for return is brought down within two, three, or four days; that is all to the good.
I ask the minister to carry the same good principle to the matter of individual rights and assure to the individual the right of appeal to the courts, the right to know what the charge is, and the right to be able to answer those of his accusers who remain invisible incognitos. I think the minister has an opportunity in his department to bring about a change that will assure justice, a change that is overdue in that department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope hon. members will allow me to make a few observations in reply while the remarks of the hon. member for Prince Albert are still fresh in my mind. I think the hon. gentleman, in a speech to which I otherwise take no exception so far as tone was concerned, did himself a little less than justice in declining to read the three lines of my speech at Windsor which followed the part he did read. I feel it is a little bit unfair to those to whom the remarks were addressed not to have them on the record, so I propose to read them now. I propose to read them with the two paragraphs the hon. gentleman read, so they will all be together.
And the easier it is for the newcomers to fit into the country, the faster we can all get on with the task of building up the country.
I say it is usually more difficult for a newcomer to become a Canadian than it is for a child brought up in this country.
The following is the paragraph to which I want to draw attention:
But I do not believe that anybody is a better Canadian just because he happened to be born in Canada, and I have never said so and I hope I never will.
Now, sir, I want to make a few remarks about the more serious parts of the hon. gentleman's speech. I want to make them very seriously. Before doing that I cannot fail to express my profound admiration of the capacity of the hon. member for Prince Albert to make the same speech serve every conceivable occasion and every debate that arises in this house. I cannot recollect that the hon. gentleman has ever spoken more than two paragraphs in this house without the star chamber appearing, and he has never spoken a dozen paragraphs without King Charles' head popping out from under his arm.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the hon. gentleman reading from now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall try to take the points the hon. gentleman raised in opposite order to the order in which he raised them. He said this department had overruled the courts

by order in council. I am only a simple layman and the hon. gentleman is a learned member of the bar, but I do not know of any court in this country in which an order in council could override the law or would be regarded for one instant as having any such effect.
What happened in the case to which he has alluded is this. The governor in council made certain regulations which he believed meant something. The Supreme Court of Canada said they meant something else. The governor in council who, in the first place, had the power to make these regulations then amended the regulations to make them mean what he thought they had meant in the first place. There was nothing retroactive about that change at all.
The hon. gentleman said the department by-passed the courts. At the same time he objected to my statement that we were going to appeal to the supreme court. Well, it is an odd kind of by-passing, sir, to appeal to the supreme court. I did not say I was satisfied or dissatisfied with the decision of the court of appeal of Ontario. I said the decision of the court of appeal was so important from the point of view of law that I felt it was essential for the administration of this department to know from the final arbiter, which is the supreme court, what the law really was. That is the reason, and the sole reason, I intend to recommend to my hon. friend the Attorney General of Canada that this case be appealed.
Now, it is of course totally untrue-I am not accusing the hon. gentleman-it is totally inaccurate to say that the Immigration Act is administered according to the whim and caprice of government officials. It is nothing of the kind. The regulations are made just as clearly and precisely as it is possible to make regulations which must apply to the almost infinite variety of human beings with whom the department has to deal. I do not know of any possible way in which regulations could be drafted that would create the kind of sure guide needed for every conceivable situation that might arise when some three or four million applications for admission to this country were being considered. This illustrates the magnitude of the problem with which the immigration branch has had to deal in the last 10 years. In order to get
1,200,000	immigrants it must have meant that at some stage or other there were three or four times that many people making approaches to our offices.
The suggestion that some judicial process should be set up that would make it possible to consider each of those disputed applications to this country is really to suggest something 50433-210J
29, 1955	3323
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that is completely and utterly impractical. Under such a system we would have nothing but a trickle of immigrants. On the other hand, there is a good deal of confusion in this whole discussion between the question of applications for admission to the country and the question of deportation of people who have been legally landed here.
In the case of an application for admission there is nothing in the Immigration Act, which the hon. member for Prince Albert helped to put on the statute books and with which I had nothing to do because I was not a member of parliament at that time, which gives any person except a citizen of Canada residing outside of Canada the right to enter this country. There are, therefore, no legal rights at issue at all in the question of entry to Canada.
Once a person is landed as an immigrant he is vested with certain rights under the act. There is a process laid down for deportation, and that process provides for informing the person of the grounds upon which he is being deported and for an appeal to the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it done?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is always done.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what the
courts hold.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The information is not given.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It may be that the information is not given in a form that is satisfactory to many people, and I am not saying it is perfect. I am not saying there might not be improvement in it, but the information is given in the way which is prescribed by law. There is an appeal-and I am talking about deportation orders issued against landed immigrants-in every case to the minister, if the person against whom the order is issued wishes to take that appeal.
I know that my predecessor regarded consideration of these appeals as among the most important of all his duties, and that he spent hours and hours and hours of his time considering them most carefully. And I must say that anything complimentary that is said about me or my administration-and in passing I would thank the hon. member for the rather kind things he did say-should be multiplied many times over in reference to my predecessor. I have said before in the house, and I wish to say again, that if at the end of four years I can believe that I have administered this department anything like as well as my predecessor did, I will be quite satisfied that I have served the Canadian people well.
3324	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Now, about the whim and caprice-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member permit me to make a suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My suggestion would be, in making a comparison with his predecessor, that his only mistake is in the matter of giving time for discussion of the affairs of this department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Chairman, I know I am rather given to talking too much, and I sometimes have to pay a certain penalty for it. Oh, it is not always amusing; but when something silly happens, then I try to regard it as silly. I think perhaps this country would be better off if more of us did that.
The hon. member for Prince Albert talked about the whim and caprice of individual officials. Since I became minister of the [DOT]department, even at times when some people seemed to think I was enjoying myself at the expense of the taxpayers, I have made an effort to visit the offices of this department in every place I have ever been; and I say without fear of successful, detailed contradiction that, taken by and large, the officials of this department are hard-working and conscientious and that they try, sometimes I think almost too hard, to adhere literally to the regulations.
I admit there have been a few officials who have not been satisfactory, and that one or two of them have had to be prosecuted in the courts. I hope I shall never lack the courage, if I find there is any wrongdoing anywhere in my department, to deal with it, and to deal with it regardless of what the consequences may be for me or for anybody else. If I do any wrong, then I shall endeavour to the best of my ability to undo it. I know it is impossible to deal with the number of people that this department has to deal with in a year, during which there are 50 million border crossings, and not make mistakes; and of course there are mistakes made. But what surprises me is that there are so few.
I think that is really all I have to say in reply to the hon. member for Prince Albert.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I was pleasantly surprised a moment ago when, for the first time-and that does not mean that he has not done so previously-I heard the minister (Mr. Pickersgill) reply to the hon.


member for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) in excellent French, for which I congratulate him. He certainly has the admiration of all those present in the house. I believe we should congratulate him on his magnificent effort.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, convinced as I am that he will readily understand the few remarks I wish to make, I do not hesitate to speak in my mother tongue, thereby confirming the fact that there are two official languages in our country.
Although I have just congratulated the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for his generous gesture, I nonetheless wish to take him to task for certain statements he made recently, although I do not intend to repeat the ones which have been mentioned here in this house. I would like to refer, if you wish, to the same speech he made at Victoria and which contained a remark to which attention has not yet been called.
I find it in Le Soleil of Quebec, a newspaper which is the organ of the party now in power in the country. It is a dispatch from the Canadian Press, dated April 12, 1955, and entitled:
The immigrant who is willing to work will find employment.
This statement is followed by the name (Pickersgill), in brackets, meaning that those remarks were uttered by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. According to that statement-and I am quoting what is between quotation marks, which means, I believe, that those are the exact words of the minister-
It is not difficult to settle in Canada, in spite of growing unemployment, provided an average worker does not hesitate to accept any kind of employment.
Reference was made a moment ago to the irresponsible statements which the minister makes on a great many occasions. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that no statement could have been more irresponsible than those remarks made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in his speech in Victoria. By contending that an immigrant coming to this country who truly wishes to work can find employment, the minister has insulted the
700,000	Canadian workers who are now unemployed, because his statement amounts to denying that 700,000 Canadian workers have decided to find employment. That is perfectly ridiculous and I repeat it is a serious insult to the Canadian people.
Mr. Chairman, the dispatch goes on to say -hon. members on the other side find that

funny, Mr. Chairman, but we on this side respect our opinions and we are not afraid to rise and defend the rights of Canadians.
(Text):


Mr. Dickey:: You had better put in for danger pay, Tom.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Would you repeat the remark, so I may have the pleasure of answering?


Pierre Gauthier: It was not for
you at all. You would not understand it, anyway.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member for Portneuf never understood anything, because we never see him in his seat.


Pierre Gauthier: It was not for
you at all.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, I continue with the article:
Such was the opinion expressed yesterday by the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in answer to the charges made that he had allowed immigrants into the country in spite of the fact that a large number of Canadians are at present out of work.
Further on in the same article there is a quotation from the minister. I will return to this question later.
For the moment let us say that the minister, in the same speech, admitted that unemployment had reached a very high level in this country. According to the statement made by him this very afternoon, Canada has received, since the end of the last war,
1,200,000	immigrants. Whatever may be said to the contrary, this massive immigration policy implemented by the Canadian government since the last world war is no doubt one of the reasons, if not the only reason, why we are at this time faced with such heavy unemployment. The reason is evident and I do not blame the minister since it is only very recently that he took over the portfolio of that department.
What is the economic contribution of the immigrants? On one hand, a few small industries, bringing with them some capital, have been established here and there in Canada. At the same time, a certain number of craftsmen have brought us new techniques and modern methods. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the large majority of the newcomers for the past ten years have been industrial or unskilled workers. To support that statement I think it is sufficient to bring forward the following statistics: 13 per cent only of the total number of newcomers have
29, 1955	3325
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration established themselves on farms, while 5 per cent only went to work as domestic help, notwithstanding the fact that most of the immigrants claimed to belong to these categories in order to gain admission into Canada. Shortly after they were through with that work, either as farm-hands or as servants, these people made their way to our large centres, and we cannot blame them for being attracted by good salaries and for wanting to be able to meet fellow countrymen.
However, hundreds of thousands of these people have increased our industrial labour force, which means that they had to find some 200,000 homes in our industrial centres where the housing problem was already acute. Most of them work for large corporations which get fabulous government contracts, such as Canadair, in Montreal, Canadian Vickers and a number of crown corporations. But what, to my mind, is outrageous is that the moment there is some unemployment the first ones to be laid off are the native sons of Canada, while the newcomers are kept on the job.
I do not want to cast reflection on people who left their country to take refuge in Canada, where they can at least find peace and freedom. I would be the last one to blame them for trying to become Canadian citizens when they wanted to flee from communism and slavery. But I consider that we have not shown good sense in our immigration policy.
I feel that not enough thought was given to this matter and that, in particular, we did not take economic conditions in Canada into consideration before increasing our population to a considerable extent. Lest I be misunderstood let me say that I am not opposed to immigration. On the contrary, I am in favour of selective well-chosen immigration-


Pierre Gauthier: Well, that is what we have now.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: But immigration should only be favoured when this country is prosperous, when everyone has a job. Immigration must be on a selective basis, as I said a moment ago, and provided only that we enjoy here in Canada a certain measure of economic stability.
As for those whom we have welcomed -most are now Canadian citizens perhaps-* let us hope that they will find in Canada what they really came here for so that some day they may be Canadians worthy of the name.
3326	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Let us rather combine our efforts, so as to keep our own people in this country and prevent thousands of Canadians who are unable to find any work in Canada from emigrating to the United States.
Following these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Canada is in a position to continue to receive immigrants this year, and in the future, at the same rate as it has since the end of the war.
I would also like to say a word about the racial distribution of our people with regard to immigration. Since the end of the war Anglo-Canadians, representing a little less than 50 per cent of our population, have received reinforcements out of the 1,200,000 odd new Canadians arriving here, to the extent of 30 per cent. French-speaking Canadians, who make up 30 per cent of our people, have only received reinforcements to the extent of 2 per cent.
I will not blame my English-speaking fellow citizens for requiring even more reinforcements, for asking that more Englishspeaking people be admitted to this country. But, as a French-speaking Canadian, as a citizen of Quebec, I think that because of their contribution to Canada since confederation, French Canadians deserve a greater proportion so as to stabilize Our group better within the Canadian nation.
I would therefore ask the hon. minister, first, for a temporary halt on further landings of immigrants in this country, until the day when our economic balance is restored and every Canadian has his own job enabling him to face his obligations, to maintain his family, and to be, at the same time, a true Canadian.
Mr. Chairman, may I very sincerely congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Holowach), who just now touched upon a most important and serious point. I agree with the hon. member who said that it is inconceivable that a child born in Canada, even on the day after the arrival of its parents in this country, should be denied the family allowance to which it is entitled. Being born in Canada, the child is a Canadian citizen and, once a Canadian citizen, comes under Canadian law.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. minister a simple question.
Could he tell me-
(Text):
Can the minister tell me if the D'Ambreville case from Haiti has been settled and if the applicant has passed the necessary medical


examination. I know the applicant's wife has been notified that permission will be granted to him to come to Canada provided he can pass the medical examination.
(Translation):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not have here the required information with respect to this case. I shall be pleased however to give him the details on Monday.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I thank the hon. minister in advance and I shall be grateful for that information.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has mentioned a certain bureaucracy which is enthroned in the department. I would like to call to the attention of the minister the bureaucracy which has established itself in the department of immigration in the very city of Quebec.
I wish to call to the attention of the hon. minister-I am pleased to note also the presence of the deputy minister-the fact that in Quebec city last year a competition, known under No. 54-6749, for the position of immigration officer grade 2, -was held in the department of immigration. Many applicants came to the civil service commission office- (Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. gentleman will permit me to speak in the official language which I speak more easily. The subject upon which he is now entering does not come within the jurisdiction of this department. It comes within the jurisdiction of the civil service commission. Perhaps the hon. member would reserve his remarks until the appropriate department is before the committee.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I do not wish to discuss this matter in regard to the civil service commission; I wish to discuss what happened in the immigration department at Quebec when this examination was called by the minister. I am not dealing with the civil service commission at all, I am just dealing with the way some officials acted in connection with this competition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I feel that I ought to insist on my point of order. This whole matter has nothing whatever to do with the officials of my department. I understand that the examination was held on the premises of the department, but it was conducted by the civil service commission.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On the point of order, the minister seems to know what I am referring to and he seems anxious to get to his feet,

but I do not think he is so anxious to have me deal with this case. I suggest respectfully that what I want to talk about has nothing to do with the civil service commission. I want to deal with what happened in the department of immigration in connection with a competition, because most of those who applied for this position as officer, grade 2, were already members of the department.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am largely in the hands of the committee because, as is known, I have not been able to follow in detail the arguments which led up to the point of order. If I am correct in assuming that the hon. member for Quebec West wishes to discuss the merits or demerits of the method of holding a competition or of making appointments to this department or to any department, that is those which have largely been taken out of the field of what used to be called politics and have been handed over to the civil service commission, those that have been withdrawn from the active control of the minister in charge of the department, then they would be capable of discussion only when the estimates of the civil service commission are before us. But they are not capable of being discussed when the estimates of a department to which such civil servants hope to be appointed or promoted are before this committee.
I have no desire, and I do not think the committee has any desire, to restrict the freedom of discussion in any way, but it is a fact that the procedure followed and the weight given in a competition under the civil service commission are not matters coming before the minister of immigration; they are not within the competence of the minister. If the hon. member for Quebec West wishes to discuss the actions of an employee of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as such, of course he may proceed. If he wishes to discuss the manner in which such employee was hired or promoted as the result of a civil service competition; if he is referring to the method of holding a competition or to what happened in that connection, I shall have to rule that he must hold that criticism until the estimates of the civil service commission are before the committee, at which time of course he would be perfectly free to discuss all the aspects of that type of competition.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I want to discuss the matter in both ways; first of all, the way some officials of the department have acted and, second, the way the competition was looked after.


Pierre Gauthier: Shut up.
29. 1955	3327
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I will shut up when I am through. Nobody will make me shut up until my time is up. Those who cannot say anything but "shut up", Mr. Chairman, have nothing else to say, and I have never seen them on their feet in this house. The only thing they have to do is try to insult others who are here performing their duty.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Chairman,-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am not allowing the hon. member to make a speech on my time.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Will both hon. gentlemen please resume their seats? If the hon. member for Portneuf is raising a point of order or -a question of privilege-


Pierre Gauthier: A question of privilege. As often as the hon. member for Quebec West can try to insult a member of this house, he does so.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On a point of order-


Mr. Harkness:: That is not a question of privilege.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The hon. member for Portneuf has the floor on a question of privilege, and I will hear him; but at the same time the hon. member for Portneuf will please direct his attention to the specific question of privilege that he is raising and to that only.


Pierre Gauthier: The hon. member for Quebec West says he does not see the members on this side of the house get up very often, and that they would rather sit and listen, or not listen, to his brilliant speeches. But I am asking the hon. member to understand that he is absolutely out of order, and all the members of this house-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is not up to you to decide the rules of this house.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: Why does he not abide by the ruling of the Chair?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What is the question of privilege?


Pierre Gauthier: I stated the
question of privilege at the outset of my remarks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no privilege there.


Pierre Gauthier: If I have to speak in Greek, I will.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I suggest to the hon. member for Quebec West and to the hon. member for Portneuf that it will be easier for us to handle questions of order or privilege if we get them one at a time; and, without wishing to curtail the liberties of the
3328	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration members of the committee, if we get them without too much outside assistance.
I do not think the question raised by the hon. member for Portneuf can be justified as a question of privilege. The hon. member for Quebec West has replied, as a great many members of this house are entitled to reply, in fairly general and not too complimentary terms to interjections from various hon. members of the house. I am not going to rule the type of reply he has just made out of order, but I am going to endeavour to enforce the point of order which I was called upon to decide a short time ago. The hon. member for Quebec West.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I was doing when I was interrupted by the hon. member for Portneuf. That was not the first time in the course of my speeches that I have been interrupted by him and some of his colleagues.


Pierre Gauthier: The first time tonight.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And not always in a very intelligent way, as you have probably noticed.


Pierre Gauthier: You are no judge of that.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: As I said, my intention was to discuss the matter in both ways; first of all, the way in which the competition was conducted and, second, the way some of the officials of the department have acted. As you have ruled that I cannot speak on the manner in which the competition has been conducted, I shall now wait until the estimates of the civil service commission come up to continue my remarks on that particular matter.
I shall now conclude by saying that I do think the remarks I made earlier should be taken in good part by the minister of immigration, and that he should do his utmost to see that, first of all, we give our own Canadians the jobs they are entitled to before having more immigrants enter Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member for Quebec West. I presume, of course, that he was speaking for the Conservative party.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the position of the government-


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On a point of order-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. If the hon. member for Quebec West is rising on a point of order we must listen to him.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: He probably had a hard time hearing me, as there were so many
IThe Deputy Chairman.]

speaking on the other side. On a point of order, I do not think the minister has the right to attribute to me intentions that I do not have. I was not speaking on behalf of one political party. I was speaking on my own behalf, and we have here on this side of the house the privilege of having different opinions on one matter or another.


An hon. Member:: On all matters.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I understand that the point the hon. member for Quebec West is raising as a point of order is not really such at all but a matter of personal explanation, which he has had an opportunity to make and he was entitled to make.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I might make a suggestion, it seems to me that all the discussion in the committee so far, except for the question asked by my hon. friend the hon. member for Roberval, has related to immigration. Could we pass the first item on departmental administration and then take the rest of the estimates, in order under the various branches, so I could have the appropriate officials here to assist and so there might perhaps be a little more order in the consideration of the estimates?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: They seem to enjoy it.


Mr. Michener:: Mr. Chairman, before we come to the details of the items, I should like to make one or two general observations arising partly out of what the minister has said. Perhaps it would not be out of place to say something about the proceedings of the special committee on estimates. It seems to me that the committee has accomplished a fair part of the work of this committee of supply in reviewing many of the details of the administration of the department. That is perhaps evidenced by what has been said so far, because our discussion today has not been on the details of administration but on one or two general matters which have occupied the committee up to this time.
I think it proper to say that, as a member of that committee, I find no room for complaint about the conduct of the officials of the department whom we had the privilege of examining, the deputy minister and those who were with him. We were free to ask them questions directly, and we received our answers in many cases directly. Sometimes the minister assumed that a matter of policy was involved and undertook to speak for his officials, but by and large we received the information which we asked for and were not refused information. I think perhaps that, rather than putting it on a negative basis and saying that we have no complaints,
I should say that the procedure of the

special committee commends itself to me as a distinct improvement over what can. be done in this committee of supply.
I will not go as far as that with respect to the minister himself. We complained about his being a member of the committee at the same time as he was a witness appearing before the committee to answer for his department, but that matter was resolved by force majeure. We were not able to carry our point. We had the minister speaking on both sides of the issue and we also had him as a witness. I must say that if you review the transcript you will find that the minister used as much of the time of the committee as almost anyone else.


Mr. Weir:: Good.


Daniel Roland Michener: Perhaps he volunteered more information than he was asked at times. I think of one statement he made which perhaps he might have wished unsaid, and with which others might not agree. At page 12 of the transcript the hon. member for Kamloops said:
I do not want to get into an argument right away, but I do think the minister is being overly cautious.
Then the minister said:
The minister himself has indicated that he is timid and careful in his utterances, and he stands by that.
He characterized himself in those terms. He was not responding to any question, and possibly expressed an opinion which others may not hold.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Merely the truth shining forth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just an obiter dictum.


Daniel Roland Michener: That was obiter. I do want to say something about the difficulties we had over Mr. Taylor's evidence, and I say it because I think what the minister said this afternoon gives a wrong impression to the committee. To my mind what was involved was not the production before the committee of some mysterious documents. It seems to me that the discussion of those documents was used as a screen to obscure the fact that here was a witness who might have given information to the committee out of his own experience, but whose evidence was refused by the committee. I say that because Mr. Taylor, as the minister himself said, is a practising lawyer having a good deal of immigration work, who undertook to review some 200 cases which had come before the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make it clear, if I did not this afternoon, that the
3329
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration 200 cases were 200 cases that came to Mr. Taylor in his law practice.


Daniel Roland Michener: I am not denying they were 200 cases that came to him in his law practice. He probably knew them better than if information about them had come to him by hearsay. But whatever they were, whether they were cases of his clients or partly of his clients and partly of clients of other lawyers in any event he reviewed the cases and he had opinions, as a result of that experience, as to the administration of the department. It seems to me that his opinions based on that experience were the sort of evidence that might have been useful to a committee which was reviewing the administration of the department. He had made criticisms and had offered his evidence. If there was nothing to his criticisms, surely it would have been better for the department and the minister to allow the witness to come, say what he had to say, and if his complaints could be met, meet them and dispose of them.
The minister has made quite a play of meeting all issues head-on, and I must say that in his own conduct in respect of other things he appears to do that. He does not balk at any questions, nor does he refuse any issue. However, in this particular case this man offered his evidence and the minister, instead of allowing his evidence to be heard, which could have been done without inconvenience to the committee or to the witness, hid behind the substantial majority of government members on the committee, and on three or four occasions when the question was brought to a head he permitted the vote of the government majority to settle the question of whether this man should appear.
The only consequence is that the suspicion arising out of such criticisms as this man made, and which we have all heard to some extent, lingers instead of being met. If there is any grievance it has not been remedied. If there was no grievance the suspicion continues, to the discredit and discomfort of the minister. Therefore I suggest that in that particular instance, when there was no question of producing documents but simply of allowing a man who had special experience to come and tell his story and be examined before a committee, it was wrong for the government majority to refuse by sheer weight of numbers to hear that evidence, and it was wrong for the minister to countenance that action.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have a general complaint with regard to the arbitrary manner in which a great deal of the immigration work of the department seems to be
3330	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration carried on, and the fact that the department seems to be very stiff-necked about its own errors and extremely difficult to persuade to change any decision that has been made, no matter how wrong it may be shown to have been in the first place. In this connection I should like to cite the case of a woman, Mrs. Jessie Wilson, who came to this country from Australia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit one very brief interruption? If we are now going to have immigration, can we carry item 59 and go on with immigration, because it would be a great help to me to have the director here?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I have to say is by way of general criticism of the departmental administration and the way things are carried on. I think this is probably the proper place to bring up the matter, rather than attempt to bring it up in detail at another time when I might be told it was not really properly applicable at that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Strictly speaking it is not properly applicable on the item of departmental administration. It is properly applicable on the immigration branch item. However, I am not insisting on the point at all.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am not going to rule the hon. member for Calgary North out of order. I am not suggesting it is the most efficient method, but it has been the practice to allow almost any discussion relevant to the department on the first item. It will be up to hon. members who wish to raise these points whether they insist on raising them at this stage or whether it would suit their purposes better to do so when the appropriate officials are before the minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this particular case illustrates quite well the arbitrary methods frequently used, I am afraid, in the immigration department, and the impossibility almost of getting the department, including the minister in charge, to rectify anything, make any change or admit that any error has taken place. I took up this case first of all with the present Minister of Finance when he was minister of citizenship and immigration. I thought I was making some progress on it, but nothing happened. I took it up with the present minister, and still nothing happened.
Briefly, the circumstances in the case were these. This woman, Mrs. Jessie Wilson, had a son living in Calgary. He had been an air trainee during the war, married a Canadian girl, came back and settled there and is living there at the present time. His mother came over to visit him. Before she left Australia


she took the usual physical examination. As a matter of fact she bought a return passage. She was not sure whether she wanted to settle here and live in Canada, as her son was urging her to do, or whether she would go back. In any event, she took the usual medical examination and it was discovered by X-ray that she had a tubercular scar of some sort on her lung. The people in Australia told her the scar was of old origin, was not active, and that for all practical purposes she was quite fit and well.
Mrs. Wilson landed in Vancouver and was allowed to remain 24 hours, when she was put on a ship and sent back to Australia. The main points of the story are perhaps best set out in an editorial in the Calgary Herald, which took up this case. I shall read briefly from this editorial which is headed, "What's Happening in Immigration?"
We do not like the sound of the reports of episodes which keep trickling out of the machinery of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
The latest of these concerns Mrs. Jessie Alice Wilson, an Australian woman, who after travelling all the way to Canada to visit her son in Calgary was summarily sent home by the immigration authorities in Vancouver. The authorities denied entry to Mrs. Wilson on the grounds that she was suffering from tuberculosis, and they took this decision despite a recommendation from some Vancouver doctors who examined her that "it would not be advisable to order deportation until conclusive tests had been made."
As a matter of fact, I have here a photostatic copy of a letter which was given to Mrs. Wilson in Vancouver when she was examined there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Examined by whom?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am just beginning to read it. This letter is headed, "Division of tuberculosis control, department of health and welfare, Willow chest centre, Vancouver, B.C.; January 19, 1954". It is addressed to the department of immigration, Vancouver, B.C.; re Mrs. Jessie Alice Wilson. It reads as follows:
Chest X-ray of January 18, 1954, reveals fibrotie appearing infiltration in the peripheral portion of the first and second right interspaces. There would appear to be a calcification deposited in these areas. This has the appearance of an arrested area of tuberculosis and it is our opinion that it would not be justifiable to deport this patient on the strength of the present findings.
Before a dogmatic opinion regarding this area can be given, further followup studies by X-ray and stomach washings would be necessary.
Yours truly,
Signed "D. Mowat"
D. Mowat, M.D.,
Clinic director.
Willow chest centre.
What happened was that this woman was examined by an immigration doctor and he said she had pulmonary tuberculosis. She

had been told before she left Australia that she did not, that this was just an old scar. She was examined by this man who is head of the provincial tuberculosis centre in British Columbia, and he advised that she should not be deported on the strength of anything he could find. In spite of that she was deported. Complaints were made, and I took the matter up with the present' Minister of Finance, who said he would have the case reviewed. He did have it reviewed, but the doctors in the immigration department said, "No; pulmonary tuberculosis. We cannot have the woman in here".


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must rise on a point of
order. The hon. gentleman is not talking about matters over which I, as minister, or my predecessor, as minister, had any control whatever. The determination of these cases, as I understand it, is carried out for us by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I do not attempt to substitute my judgment for the official medical advice that I receive from the proper, competent people. I have not the right under the law to substitute myself, nor have any of the officials of this department, for that matter. Therefore if the hon. gentleman wishes to raise these individual cases, and to complain about the checking of another department of government, it does not seem to me quite reasonable-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Don't try to worm out of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -that the time allotted for this department should be taken up with it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The examination of people wishing to enter this country is performed, as the minister has just said, on behalf of the department of immigration by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The doctors who perform that examination technically belong to the Department of National Health and Welfare, but the work is done for the department of immigration. It is the immigration people who act on whatever the findings are.
As I said at the beginning, I brought this case up for the purpose of showing the arbitrary methods that are followed by the department and the subsequent impossibility, when a mistake has been discovered, to get the immigration people to admit it. In view of the medical evidence, some of which I have given here, I do not think there is any doubt that this woman never should have been deported. I have two full sheets containing clinical observations by tuberculosis specialists in Australia, both before she came to this country and after she went back. All the observations are to the effect she has 50433-211J
29, 1955	3331
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration no active tuberculosis. She has an old scar, just as many people have, and to all intents and purposes she is a fit woman.
In spite of this medical evidence, this doctor working for the department of immigration made a mistake. I do not think there is any doubt about it. He diagnosed this woman as having pulmonary tuberculosis, yet all the tuberculosis experts who have examined her claim she does not have pulmonary tuberculosis. On the basis of this diagnosis the woman was allowed to stay in the country only 24 hours. The department paid no attention to the report of the tuberculosis specialists to whom they took the woman during the brief time she was here. She was sent back to Australia, and furthermore she has not been allowed to return here. Subsequent efforts on the part of her son to get her back to this country have all been turned down, still on the basis she has pulmonary tuberculosis.
What it boils down to, and I wrote the minister to this effect, is that it would appear that once a mistake has been made by one of the doctors advising this department, then the department refuses to admit that mistake. They insist he was right, no matter how much medical evidence you bring to show he was wrong. The department acts on that basis. I shall not take the time of the house to read all this medical evidence. I have two full pages of clinical reports from tuberculosis specialists, which are on the letterhead of the anti-tuberculosis association of New South Wales.
This case has dragged on now for a year and a quarter, but no matter what medical evidence you bring in the answer is always the same, that the woman has pulmonary tuberculosis. The department maintains this position in spite of the fact that every tuberculosis specialist, both in Canada and in Australia, who has examined her says she has not and never did have it. The woman was shipped back in this arbitrary manner at great expense which she could ill afford, and she has been refused entry since. If that is not an arbitrary method of carrying on immigration to this country then I do not know what you could call arbitrary treatment.
The son became a Canadian some years ago, and first arrived in this country as a trainee under the air scheme. Both ministers, one after the other, who have handled this department during this period refused to have anything done about the matter. In other words they took the attitude, "Well, our doctor-who I do not suppose for a minute was an expert on tuberculosis-"said she had pulmonary tuberculosis and so far as we are concerned that is it." They do not
3332	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration care what the Australian doctors say. They do not care what the Vancouver specialist says. So far as they are concerned she has pulmonary tuberculosis and they are not going to let her in.
It is this type of case that has caused a great deal of distrust of the department of immigration. It is this type of thing that has caused a large number of people to believe there is something particularly wrong, particularly rotten so far as the department of immigration is concerned. I am not saying that is the case. As a matter of fact I am quite sure that the department-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -has many very able officials who do their best to carry on things in a reasonable way. This, however, indicated a stubborn attitude right at the top on the part of the minister who is now in charge, and the minister who was formerly in charge. When you have a minister in charge of a department who adopts an absolutely stubborn attitude of that sort, -and refuses to let reason enter into the settlement of any of these cases, then I do not think it is fair to blame the officials. I think the blame should be placed right squarely on the shoulders of the minister; and I think in this particular case the minister should give an undertaking to have a new review made immediately with a view to letting this woman come into this country to visit her son.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be delighted to review the case. I do not think I have ever refused any member of this house, including the hon. member who has just spoken, a review of any case I have been asked to review.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And I might say in that connection that if the minister is going to review it in the same way he reviewed it before, merely reiterating the statement that the doctor examined her once on behalf of the department, and then say "Our people know best", it will not be enough. Just wait until I get this letter from my file and read what he said in connection with the medical evidence. I find on looking in my file that I do not have the letter I intended to read.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I have so many of these letters here that it is hard to find them in a minute. But the first letter was to the effect that the medical men in the employ of the department and working for the department knew better than any of the outside doctors


what the requirements for immigration purposes would be. Then after I did get a review of the matter the minister wrote saying this:
A medical report has now been received from the chief of the Department of National Health and Welfare, immigration service, concerning Mrs. Jessie Alice Wilson of Australia.
Dr. Reid states that Mrs. Wilson is certified under section 5, s.s. (b) of the Immigration Act, and that she will require an over-all period of observation of at least two years, before up-grading can be considered.
In other words, apparently all Dr. Reid did was take the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and say, "We cannot look at her for two years, until it has a chance to clear up". On the other hand all the experts in this line who examined the woman, who took sputum tests, who X-rayed her, and everything else, insisted that she never did have pulmonary tuberculosis, that all she had was a bit of a scar that had been there for years and did no harm at all.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I think that was one of the worst exhibitions this House of Commons has ever seen, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, when his estimates were being discussed and when an item of his department was being drawn to the attention of the house, getting to his feet and declaring that because somebody else was trying to help to do the job he cannot do himself, it is not good enough because it is not in his department, that the doctors belong to another department. And in effect he says, "Therefore my time should not be wasted. You should not talk about my department, because my assistants who are trying to enable me to do the semblance of a decent job do not belong to my department." That is a fine attitude to take.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He says they are not his
babies.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, they are not his babies. The majority of cabinet ministers in the Liberal government take the responsibility for everything that is done in those departments. But here we have a new minister trying to shove it off, on to another department. That is a fine manner in which to do business.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the item
carry?


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words. I sat on the estimates committee when it dealt with the estimates of this department. It was emphasized on many occasions that the department had not been careful enough in screening immigrants

entering this country. We sat through hour after hour listening to that kind of criticism. It was opposition members sitting on that committee who made all the criticism. There was information the minister was unable to give them with respect to screening in Europe, and they were not satisfied with that. They wanted to have all the details.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: That is not-


Andrew Wesley Stuart: You have had your say, Fergie; now I want mine. They wanted all the details about how the screening was done, to find out if the department was being careful enough. I have heard the accusation made on the floor of the house that immigrants who did come to this country were found to be in ill health, and we have been criticized for having to take care of them.
Tonight the shoe is on the other foot. I know Dr. Reid very well, and I have a lot of confidence in his judgment. But they say Dr. Reid knows nothing about this disease, and that the only thing we can do is discard any advice that might be at our disposal and take that of some other doctor who might be in British Columbia or Australia. I feel we have doctors of our own in this country who can take care of this situation. I do believe the screening that is being done for this department should not be condemned, and that we should support it.
29, 1955	3333
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to end this discussion on a peaceful note by asking you to call it ten o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I not make a humble appeal to hon. members to let item 59 pass so we can get along with the estimates the next time they come up?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am afraid if that were done I would not have the opportunity to make the remarks I intend to make.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It being ten o'clock, shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Green:: What is the business for Monday?


Mr. Lapointe:: We shall continue with the budget debate on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 2, 1955