1956-08-08

Mr. Goode: What is the total amount of federal funds allocated to: (a) construction costs; (b) equipment costs, for the Vancouver general hospital in the last 16 years, and how many more federal dollars are committed?


CIVIL DEFENCE, VANCOUVER    DECENTRALIZATION OF HOSPITALS
Mr. Goode: In connection with civil defence planning, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare consider the importance of decentralizing major hospital construction from Vancouver to those areas outside the boundaries of the city of Vancouver?


VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL
Mr. Goode: Is it not time to reassess the requests of the government of British Columbia to further enlarge the Vancouver general hospital, having in mind civil defence in British Columbia?
Mr. Robertson, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of National Health and Welfare: Mr. Speaker, questions 64, 65 and 66 all deal with the same subject matter. With your consent, I will answer these three questions at this time.
Question No. 64 reads:
What is the total amount of federal funds allocated to: (a) construction costs; (b) equipment costs, for the Vancouver general hospital in the last 16 years, and how many more federal dollars are committed?
Since the establishment in 1948 of the national health program federal assistance for construction and for the provision of technical and scientific equipment in buildings and services on the grounds of the general hospital, Vancouver, has totalled as follows: (a) for construction costs, payments, $716,456; further commitments, $612,561; (b) for equipment costs, payments, $336,500; further commitments, $25,900.
Question 65 reads:
In connection with civil defence planning, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare consider the importance of decentralizing major hospital construction from Vancouver to those areas outside the boundaries of the city of Vancouver?
The problem of decentralizing hospital construction has received continuous study for many months, and is still under consideration. The damaging effect of high-yield nuclear weapons covers a radius which would make buildings uninhabitable for 15 miles from the explosion centre. Little protection would be afforded by sites on the fringe of cities, although the reduced damage at that distance might enable hospitals to be repaired and reoccupied as opposed to those within five to 10 miles of the centre of the city, which would likely be destroyed.
On the other hand, many staffing and other difficulties affect the practicability of completely rural location. Question No. 66 is as follows:
Is it not time to reassess the requests of the government of British Columbia to further enlarge the Vancouver general hospital, having in mind civil defence in British Columbia?
During the past year the province of British Columbia submitted a project under the national health program in respect of a proposed addition to the Vancouver general hospital. This project was approved by the federal government and assistance was made available in the amount of $609,236 for an addition of 524 beds and related facilities at that hospital. Since that time no further project relating to the Vancouver general hospital has been received from the province of British Columbia. Planning for the size, location and construction of public hospitals is of course the responsibility of the provincial governments concerned.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


ADVERTISING


Mr. Smith (Battle River-: Camrose):
1.	What was the cost of the Department of Public Works' legal advertisements carried in the July 27, 1956 issue of the Mannville Mirrorl
2.	In what other weekly newspapers in central eastern Alberta were these advertisements inserted?
3.	How much has the Mannville Mirror received from the Department of Public Works for advertising for the years 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956 up to June 30?
4.	How many tenders have been received from the Mannville district during the abovementioned years as a result of these advertisements?
5.	How much did the following newspapers receive from the Department of Public Works for advertising during the abovementioned years:

Orders for Returns
the Camrose Canadian, the Vegreville Observer, the Wainwright Star Chronicle, the Viking News, the Lloydminster Times, the Surrey Leader and the Medicine Hat News'!
Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works: Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for a reply from our district office and in the meantime I would ask that this question be made an order for return. As soon as the information is received it will be tabled.



BRANDON EXPERIMENTAL FARM


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Have steps been taken by the government to establish an entomological laboratory at the Brandon experimental farm? If so, when?
2.	Have any funds been appropriated for this purpose? If so, what amount?
3.	What will be the nature of the work carried out in this laboratory if and when it is completed?
4.	What progress is being made on the science service building at the University of Manitoba?
Mr. McCubbin, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Agriculture: Mr. Speaker, I have not the answer to this question and would ask that it be made an order for return which will be tabled as soon as possible.



CROWSNEST PASS FREIGHT RATES

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the government or any department or agency thereof received any requests from the railway companies or other companies or individuals for an increase in the Crowsnest pass rates on grain?
2.	If so, from whom and of what nature?



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


Mr. Herridge: What number of persons have obtained employment in the civil service of Canada by virtue of exemptions from the terms of the Civil Service Act, by years since 1940?



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING


Mr. Van Horne: 1.	Has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation decided to sell its houses in Brookside park, Campbellton, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, on what basis were sale prices determined, what is the sale price of each house, and what did these houses cost per unit?
3.	How much money was collected in rents for each of these houses on an average?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97-Mr. Dufresne:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, relevant to all sales of government properties during the fiscal year 1955-56, in which the total sales price was 25 per cent less than the original purchase price.
[Mr. Smith (Battle River-Camrose) .1
Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with the hon. member about the wording of this notice of motion and he has advised me he would like to have it dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) is not present. Perhaps it would do no harm to wait until he returns before it is dropped. If he does not return it will die on the order paper.


Mr. Green:: Perhaps it could stand.
Motion stands.



POSTMASTERSHIP, DEBDEN, SASK.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 99-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all letters, including in particular alleged complaints, if any, which have passed between the department of the Postmaster General or any officials of his department, and any person or persons, since the 1st day of January, 1956, regarding the postmastership at Debden, Saskatchewan, and the temporary filling of the position.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can inform the house if we will have legislation having to do with the tax agreement between Canada and the United States?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government would like to have the agreement approved. The matter will be discussed in the usual way as to the possibility of having the legislation dealt with expeditiously before the session ends.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of National Revenue answered a question which was on the order paper in my name and I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would he be kind enough to supply me with the names of legal firms in Vancouver which have given the C.B.C. assistance in the past?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, I shall comply with that request.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position to give the house and the country a summary of the situation today in the Middle East, and what are the probabilities of Egypt accepting the invitation to attend the conference? What view has he as to Colonel Nasser's apparently impudent action in arranging to be in Moscow on the opening date of the conference?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I would not like to make any comment upon Mr. Nasser's movements, and I cannot make any prediction as to whether he will accept the invitation to attend the conference which is to take place in London. No developments have been reported to the Department of External Affairs since the beginning of the week.


POSTAL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now prepared to answer the question I addressed to him on August 1, as reported on page 6784 of Hansard, in regard to a petition with reference to mail deliveries in Saskatoon.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Postmaster General):: I must apologize to the hon. gentleman for not having given him the information sooner. I did make inquiries from the officials of the department, and a petition such as the one he mentioned in his question was received during the course of the week. The decision as to whether letter carrier service can be extended to Sutherland is being looked into again in the light of the representations made by the petitioners.


REQUEST FOR ONE WEEK'S EXTRA PAY FOR TEMPORARY STAFF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. The other day the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) asked a question of the minister with regard to extra pay for the stenographers and other 67509-457
Indian Act
members of the staff, who have had this particularly long session, in lieu of holiday pay. I wonder whether the minister has an answer to that question.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: No. I thought that, if any were required, I might make it perhaps on the closing day.


INDIAN ACT
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 439, to amend the Indian Act.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Yesterday in debate on second reading we indicated certain objections and criticisms of the bill. The motion for second reading itself we allowed to carry on division in the hope that in committee our suggestions and amendments might be adopted, at least in part, and thus improve the bill. The minister declined to accept any of the suggestions that we made or to accept any of the amendments. We therefore find that our suspicions and our concern with regard to the bill are confirmed. I would therefore ask you, sir, to call for the yeas and the nays.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
amendment extending provisions to persons

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 449, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act- Mr. Gregg-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1

Extension of act to fishermen.
Mr. Gregg:: When this bill was considered yesterday by the standing committee on industrial relations, Mr. Chairman, there was a great deal of discussion, and I think useful discussion. When we had finished with the discussion members of the committee realized that the printed copy of the proceedings might possibly not be available until this house rises. Since I had made only a brief statement on the proposed change under section 45 (2) of the act at the (Mr. Fulton.]
resolution stage, the committee asked if I would make a slightly longer explanation when the bill came back into the house, and that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave to do.
First, this bill will enable the commission, with the approval of the governor in council, to bring under the act by regulation those engaged in the fishing industry. This part of the bill is to enable a decision now reached with respect to fishermen to be carried into effect during the coming months. The intention is to have the plan ready so that the contributions from fishermen for unemployment insurance might begin to be received on April 1, 1957, and the benefits therefrom available to those who qualify starting in April, 1958.
The second part of the bill is designed to ease the qualifying conditions for drawing benefits under section 45 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1955, and because of the inter-related nature of the act one or two other amendments are required as a consequence. I should like to explain the existing 1955 qualifying formula, the results which the formula has produced in the past year and the amendments we are now proposing to make in order to ameliorate those results.
Under section 45 (1) of the 1955 act a claimant, to establish his ordinary benefit period, must have at least 30 weeks' contributions in the 104 weeks preceding the date of his claim, and of those at least eight contributions must be in the 52 weeks preceding his claim or since his last benefit period began, whichever is the shorter period. Section 45 (2) of the 1955 act applies to subsequent claims for ordinary benefits, and I might mention a subsequent claim is one that is made within 104 weeks of the establishment of a previous claim.
Section 45 (2) requires the claimant to have made 30 weekly contributions in the 52 weeks immediately preceding the claim, or since the start of the last benefit period, whichever period is the greater. This section particularly affects groups of workers whose type of work results in their having to claim unemployment insurance benefit every 12 months. To these workers, section 45 (2) means that they have to find 30 contribution weeks every year and there are many who cannot do that. I shall deal more fully with this group in a few minutes.
In addition to these two aspects of ordinary benefit, the 1955 act provides for two classes of seasonal benefit. The concept of seasonal benefit was introduced into our unemployment scheme in recognition of the fact that we have had winter unemployment problems

of some magnitude. Consequently, it is payable only between January 1 and April 15, the period when it is difficult for an unemployed person to find work. It applies to those who are unable to qualify for ordinary benefit.
To qualify for class A seasonal benefit, a claimant must have 15 weekly contributions since the previous March. Class B seasonal benefit is payable to a claimant who has had an ordinary benefit period that has terminated since the previous April 15. Class B seasonal benefit is payable even though the claimant has not been able to contribute to the scheme since his ordinary benefit period expired. The theory here is that if he was unable to findi work during the spring, summer and autumn, he would be highly unlikely to find it during winter.
Now that I have talked about the qualifying formula that was evolved for the 1955 act, I would like to outline the results of actual practice that were observed in the months following October 2 last year when the new act came into effect. With section 45 (1) there was no difficulty. Indeed, a claimant filing his first claim can hardly have any real attachment to insured employment if he was not required to work at least 30 weeks in the last two years, with eight of them in the last year. By a worker with a "real attachment to insured employment" I mean a worker who is actually at work requiring insurance stamps.
In regard to section 45 (2), certain difficulties arose. This section provided that if a claim is made every year, the claimant, on his second and each following claim, can qualify only if he has 30 contributions in the 52 weeks preceding his new claim. This means that a worker whose job begins in the spring and who is laid off and claims benefit each year in November, for instance ,can qualify for ordinary benefit only if he has made at least 30 weekly contributions since the previous November. This applies in the same way, of course, to claimants whose layoff period comes at other times of the year. We feel now, from the experience gained, that this disposition works too great a stringency on a number of workers who, although their employment is less than year-round, nevertheless have a very substantial attachment to insurable employment. Because of these limitations that our climate imposes on certain industries, many persons who must of necessity confine their work to those industries are unable to get as many as 30 weeks of insurable employment in a year.
During the four months after the 1955 act went into operation, that is, the months of 67509-4574
Unemployment Insurance Act October, November, December, 1955, and January, 1956, the number of claimants who failed to qualify was 45 per cent of all those filing initial claims, as compared with 29 per cent in the same four months a year before. Most of this increase was caused by section 45 (2). The number of persons involved was, as I told the house last April 18, over 90,000. It is true, of course, that some 90 per cent of these workers had enough contributions to qualify for seasonal benefit beginning on January 1 of this year.
It is also a matter of record that the percentage of those failing to qualify levelled off in the winter to about the same ratio as in the previous winter. This shows that between October and January there is a considerable volume of claims from persons who have a spring-summer-autumn pattern of employment.
To sum it up, where the difficulties occurred was among those who work for periods just slightly shorter than 30 weeks each year, and in particular among groups who tend to suffer lay-offs at times of the year when they cannot draw seasonal benefits. It is these workers to whom our present amendment will apply.
I shall now explain the details of this amendment. I made a statement to the house last May 16 in which I suggested that the difficulties of claimants were aggravated by the interposition of a seasonal benefit period between two claims for ordinary benefit. I indicated then that we might take action along the lines of disregarding seasonal benefit periods for the purpose of section 45 (2). Further study has shown, however, that we can achieve the same result by a sounder method.
We are amending section 45 (2) so that, in addition to the general requirements of the present section 45 (1), only 24 of the required 30 contribution weeks need be in the past 52 weeks; or since the beginning of the last benefit period, whichever period is longer. By amending the requalifying requirements to this extent, a substantial number of those who failed to qualify for ordinary benefit last fall will find themselves able to qualify this fall.
The minimum period of benefit, as a result of lowering the number of qualifying weeks to 24, will of course be 12 weeks rather than 15 weeks, as before. Under this formula we find that of those claimants who, according to our survey last November, had only 24 to 29 weekly contributions, and thus failed to qualify for ordinary benefit, there will be 14-5 per cent who qualify for 15 weeks of benefit; 37-4 per cent who qualify for 14 weeks of benefit; 38-8 per cent who

Unemployment Insurance Act qualify for 13 weeks of benefit; and 15-3 per cent who qualify for 12 weeks of benefit; that is, almost 85 per cent of these workers would have benefit durations of 13 weeks or more.
This is a very closely inter-related act. In order to prevent certain anomalies arising because of this change we must also amend Section 53 (3)(b) and section 53(5). This is the section dealing with seasonal benefits. Section 53 (3)(b) is amended so that, for seasonal benefit class A, the duration would be one week for every two weekly contributions since the previous March, with a floor of 10 weeks. Unless this change is made, the present rule, which allows two weeks of benefit for every three weekly contributions, would result in an anomaly as between recipients of regular benefit and seasonal benefit.
Section 53 (5) is amended so that, for seasonal benefit class B, the duration would be based on that of the last ordinary benefit period. That is, the minimum would be 12 weeks and, since payment is limited to the period January 1 to April 15, the maximum would not exceed 16 weeks.
Since 1950 I cannot recall a single month in which the commission has not brought before me the results of serious study of this act, or of its regulations or of its administration. It is good legislation and deserves that constant review and improvement that can only be based on experience, and I promise that the review will continue.
As the minister responsible for reporting on the administration of the act to the house, I am grateful for the interest, criticisms and suggestions of members from all parts of the house which help to make it a valuable stabilizing influence within our economic life and, more important, a most important agency for serving the human needs of so many of our Canadian people.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, we went over this bill in committee yesterday, as the minister said. I noticed that the minister said a few minutes ago the act was under constant review by the officials of his department. As all will agree who have had anything to do with the Unemployment Insurance Act, this is a complicated piece of legislation and its administration requires work of a very high and expert order. So the officials of the department are constantly reviewing the application of the act and the results of operations under the act.
In so far as section 29 is concerned, which is being amended by this bill to provide coverage for fishermen, there is unanimous opinion that this amendment should be made.
IMr. Gregg.]
We are glad to see it now although we feel that maybe it has been delayed a little. The matter has been under active consideration by this house since 1950 in any event and probably before that. I took the trouble last evening to go back over some of the discussions which have taken place. While practically every hon. member of the house who has any connection at all with fishermen has had something to say on the matter at one time or another, I should like to draw particular attention to one or two statements which have been made by members of my own group.
I recall that as early as 1950 when the hon. member for Royal was speaking in the unemployment insurance debate he drew attention to the plight in which both the fishermen and farmers in his district found themselves where they were engaged chiefly in seasonal employment at various times of the year. At that time he asked that some consideration be given to the plight of these men who were out of employment for extended periods of time. We hope that the regulations which will follow the passage of this bill and the work which the department will do in investigating conditions under which these men work in various parts of the country will result in adequate coverage for them.
It is true that conditions in the fishing industry on the east coast are different from those on the west coast. In so far as my own experience is concerned, peculiarly enough I have had more to do with the west coast. I have had more opportunity to study the conditions under which those men are employed. These men are protected by collective bargaining agreements to a much greater extent than those who operate on the east coast.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich from time to time has asked for protection for the workers in his locality. I recall that he has asked for protection, not only for the fishermen themselves but for those engaged in ancillary occupations. In 1954, speaking to the proposal that there should be a committee to inquire into the conditions of employment, he referred to the fact that government regulations had been introduced which affected the employment of men engaged in the logging and fishing industries. He referred to the need of greater research to make sure that our forests were not cut down in a comparatively short space of time. He then went on to refer to the fishermen and the fact that international regulations covering the fishing industry forced the men employed in that industry to work at selected seasons of the year. The hon. member then went on to say that it seemed to him that

when the committee was considering the matter consideration should be given to measures which could be introduced to offset seasonal unemployment.
He went on to ask that regulations should be brought in to ensure that those who were not in insured employment should have recourse to the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. This matter came up last year when different hon. members spoke to it, and I refer particularly to the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I should like to refer to the remarks made last year in this house by the latter hon. member. The hon. member said, as many of us have said, that it must be admitted that there were grave difficulties in the way of including fishermen in the act but he pointed out that other countries had managed to get around those difficulties. He then went on to refer to the commission which had made a study of the industry and had reported back. He said that if that commission had found that the administrative difficulties could be overcome then the minister could submit to parliament machinery which could include this group of men within the framework of the act and overcome the difficulties which his officials had admitted could be overcome.
That was one of the striking things that came out of the consideration given to this matter by the committee last year, that while it was admitted the difficulties were grave it would be possible to overcome them. We are happy to welcome this bill which we hope will solve the problem for these men. There is one question the minister might like to answer when he replies. He has spoken of the studies which must be made by the department and has stated that commencing next year at the end of the present fiscal year they hope to be in position to start taking contributions and that benefits would then be available early in 1958. I wonder if the minister would tell us what effect the coming into force of the act on September 30 this year will have on the proposal to study the matter and commence contributions next year? Will there be any conflict between the effective date of the act and the time it is estimated will be required to make a study of the proposals with regard to fishermen?
I should like to say a few words with regard to the amendments proposed to section 45 and the other sections which require to be adjusted in conjunction therewith. Yesterday in the committee we studied some charts which some of us had seen previously which had been prepared by the department showing the effect of the amendments proposed. I must admit that the charts which were
Unemployment Insurance Act produced were very convincing. They gave a clear picture of what was expected this coming season with the amendments now being introduced. I would just like to say that, while those charts were convincing and while they set out the situation with regard to the three or four cases that were studied and were used as examples, it will, after all, be actual practice that will tell the tale. I do not suppose that even the officials of the department can predict what may happen this coming winter, because no two applicants ever have precisely the same pattern of employment; consequently, the same situation cannot be expected to obtain for even two persons, let alone the great number disqualified last year.
I was rather amused, reading in the newspapers the reports of the discussions that have taken place with regard to this act, to notice that in one newspaper at least the heading claimed that 100,000 persons would benefit under these revisions, whereas the very highest figures quoted in this house officially were that only some 90,000 had suffered by reason of the 1955 act, that a good many of these had been taken care of in one way or another by the revised interpretation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Some 90 per cent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Either the claims of some of the members of this house that the number was considerably in excess of 90,000 are now borne out or the number was a great deal exaggerated in so far as the present report is concerned. In any event, whatever the numbers may be, we hope that this revision or the amendment to 45 (2) will effect the desired result and that this coming winter we shall not have a recurrence of the situation with which we were faced last year.
1 cannot close these remarks without reiterating once more the request I have made to the minister twice already, that there be no delay at all in reviewing the effects of these amendments when they come into force and that the slightest inclination to slide again into the rut in which we found ourselves last winter will bring immediate action on the part of the minister and his officials.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to reply, if I might, quite briefly to the special question the hon. member asked, namely, what significance the date of September 1 had upon the receiving of contributions and the paying of benefits. It has none whatsoever upon that. The reason why it was set as early as possible was that that would make it possible for us to evolve the regulations provided for under those two subheadings,

Unemployment Insurance Act that they may be completed before the final plan is crystallized. It was felt that the sooner that could be done the better. Consequently, September 1 was chosen as the date when this would come into effect.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Can we be assured that contributions will definitely be taken starting on April 1 of next year, whether or not the department has completely finalized its plans?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We are intending to complete the plans so that contributions may begin to be received on the first day of April 1957, the beginning of the next fiscal year and, as a result of that, that benefits may be payable to those that qualify after January 1, 1958.


Mr. Barnett:: As has been already stated, at various stages of the discussion on this bill, I think there is a thorough understanding that it is not a last-minute idea on the part of members of this house. 1 know that certain of the proposals in clause 1 of the bill to bring in coverage for the commercial fishermen will be welcomed not only by the commercial fishermen on the British Columbia coast but by those in the fresh water areas of Canada and in the Atlantic coast areas as well.
Perhaps it is one of the interesting situations in respect to our Unemployment Insurance Act that the change that this clause introduces has been brought about with a good deal less thunder on the floor of the house than has been considered necessary in respect to some other matters that we discuss here from time to time. In saying that, however, I think I should make it clear that I know-and certainly my colleague for Cape Breton South would verify-that this problem of fishermen has been of very serious concern to members such as the member for Cape Breton South ever since the first discussions on the Unemployment Insurance Act took place as far back as 1940.
However, I think it is a tribute to the attitude that has been taken by the unemployment insurance commission that, by making thorough studies of the problems, administrative and otherwise, that were involved, we are able to be discussing a clause such as the one before us today. It should be said that it has been in large part a co-operative effort between the commission, the minister and the members of the house who were particularly interested in this problem because of its existence in the areas of Canada from which they come.
I do not intend to prolong this discussion at any length, because we did give it a going over yesterday in the committee on industrial gelations; but we should appreciate that


clause 1 of this bill does make what to me is a rather significant change in the concept of the application of unemployment insurance as we have known it in this country up to the present time, inasmuch as for the first time it does bring in the principle of applying unemployment insurance to workers in this country who have not the employee-employer relationship in the narrow sense of that situation. I believe that that is a significant change that we should realize we are making at this time.
Much has been said about the administrative difficulties of bringing coverage to fishermen. I think the minister, as well as some of us not having administrative responsibilities, is aware of the fact that the passage of this bill is not going to eliminate all of those difficulties overnight. Some of us might be desirous of seeing this change become effective at an earlier date than next April. However, I think that those of us who understand some of the problems that the commission has been considering will be willing to suggest to fishermen who may be slightly disappointed that it is not going to come into effect tomorrow, that in the long run that may be to their benefit. I certainly hope that that will prove to be the case.
I have made special reference to this new concept which is coming into the act, because I think that out of the administrative experience that will result from the application of this provision to fishermen it will be possible in the not far distant future to extend the application of that idea to some of the other areas of activity in our country that so far have been outside the scope of unemployment insurance. I have in mind particularly, of course, the quite large group of agricultural workers in this country who are still not covered by unemployment insurance. As the minister will recall, that problem was discussed to a considerable extent in the committee last year when we were undertaking a complete review of the act. Certain changes were made with regard to the coverage regulations which nibbled at the fringes of the problem of the agricultural workers. However, it has been drawn to my attention recently that because of the gradual extension that has taken place in the coverage of working people by unemployment insurance and the fact that we have a relatively high level of employment throughout the country at the present time, quite a number of farmers are having some difficulty in securing all the agricultural help they would like, and one of the reasons given for that is that people do not want to go to work in uninsured employment.
I throw that out at this time because I feel it is a problem we should not forget and

also to indicate, of course, that in my view the Unemployment Insurance Act is not perfect yet. I hope that the minister and the commission will continue to give serious consideration to the possibility of extending coverage to workers in the agricultural field and that they will have that in the back of their minds as they gain administrative experience in the administration of the coverage of fishermen.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I might make some reference to the change being made in section 45(2). I am not going to attempt to discuss it in detail. Here again I think I can say that I am glad to see that the change being brought about in section 45(2) at this session is an indication that the commission and the minister are prepared to take a somewhat flexible attitude with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I hope that attitude will continue because I think it has been made abundantly clear that it is not too easy to foresee in advance the implications of all the changes that are made in the act, and the introduction of section 45(2) into the act last year certainly had results which I think no member of the industrial relations committee last year fully foresaw and which I think the minister and the commission by their own admission have indicated that they did not expect.
Therefore, while I believe that after the discussion we had yesterday all members of the committee are convinced that the proposal being brought forward here is going to correct in large measure a weakness revealed last winter in respect of section 45(2), nevertheless we will still continue to attempt to analyse the effect of the changes that are now being made. We hope that if it should prove to be the case that some inequities still result from the changes now being made the minister will be prepared to take the initiative in introducing future changes in the legislation. I know that the thought in the back of the minds of some members of the industrial relations committee last year when we were making a complete overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act was, that that was going to be "it", probably for some time. I recall that the minister did give us some reason last year to believe that it might be sometime before he would be willing to open up the act again.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I was an optimist.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am glad to see that was not a hard and fast approach as far as he was concerned. The present bill does make some changes in respect of the application of the seasonal benefit plan, and if it should happen that experience proves that those changes are working out to the serious disadvantage
Unemployment Insurance Act of any appreciable number of workers I hope the minister will be willing to take a second look at the situation when we come back again.
I think I have made it clear that more and more the Unemployment Insurance Act and the unemployment insurance fund are coming to be regarded as one of the greatest social assets we have in this country, something to be protected and guarded zealously by the working people of Canada and something which can be approached from the point of view of a careful analysis of the economics that are involved in it. As far as we are concerned, and I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say this, we intend to continue to press for changes in the act as we think they are required from time to time in order to make it more nearly the ideal coverage against the hazard of unemployment that it should be.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking again on Bill No. 449, now that it is back in the house in the committee stage, may I say that we in this group are pleased indeed that the committee saw fit to accept it in its present form. The enabling legislation found in clause 1 is particularly gratifying, as I indicated in my earlier address. However, when examined it raised a question in my mind with respect to its relationship to the other amendment having to do with section 45(2) and the actuarial soundness of the plan in the future.
We must remember that this year has been the peak period of employment in this country. I am satisfied that the fishermen desire immediate inclusion under the terms of the act. Those of us who were members of the industrial relations committee realize that this is not a simple problem and that it is going to take some study before they can be included if the fund is not going to be affected to the detriment of those in the country as a whole who may desire unemployment insurance. However, I should not like to see the government use the excuse that it is hard to work out the details as a reason for procrastination in putting into effect the terms of the legislation and including fishermen at an early date.
In discussing the bill, and having regard to the actuarial soundness of the fund, we found that last year, which was, as I said earlier, the peak period of employment in the country, the actual unemployment insurance fund as such would have been some $13 million in the red except for some very sound investments made under the fund itself which resulted in a revenue of $25 million and the fund therefore showing a profit of $12 million. If we were to have a depressed period

Unemployment Insurance Act in our economy such as we had in 1954 and having in mind the fact that fishermen are now to be included and that the broadening of section 45(2), it is estimated, may cost as much as $9 million, then on the basis of last year's figures the fact that this is a much improved piece of legislation over what we had even in the old act before 1955 will mean an additional demand on the fund of $9 million. In other words, while the fund this year showed a surplus of some $9 million because of the peak period of employment in the country, the addition of another $9 million charges that the fishermen put on it and $9 million through the implementation of the proposed revision of section 45(2) makes me rather dubious as to the soundness of the fund at the present time. That matter gives me the greatest concern at this time. I do not wish to take up any more time of the committee at this stage. I wanted to draw that matter to their attention because my feeling is-and I think industrialists and employees alike must realize it-that it may mean a revision upwards of the contributions, and it may also mean a later revision of the act, as I say, so as not to include such a large scope under its benefits.
As was indicated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, we need unemployment insurance in this country in order to keep our economy buoyant. In order to have that unemployment insurance, we must keep our fund solvent at all times. I would urge the government to be extremely careful in implementing this new piece of legislation.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, on clause 1 I should like to refer to this important amendment which now includes the fishing industry. As the hon. member for Hamilton West has said, this step has been advocated for years in this house. We have always realized, of course, that there were in the way grave administrative problems which would have to be solved. Undoubtedly at least some of those solutions still lie ahead of us. I happened to turn back the pages in Hansard this morning and glance at the debates in 1952 when the then hon. member for St. John's East raised this matter and was discussing it with the minister. At that time the minister, as reported at page 1164 of Hansard of 1952, said this:
The nature of the industry, which is highly seasonal, makes it very difficult under present procedures and conditions to apply unemployment insurance even to the wage earners.
He had pointed out at that time that only 7 per cent of the total labour force, according to the latest statistics at that time, were actually wage earners. Others were masters and owners, sharesmen and lone workers. Then the minister went on to say this:


As my hon. friend knows, the difficulties which I have outlined apply with special emphasis to the Atlantic coast fishing industry.
There is no doubt that on the east coast there is a problem which is going to require a great deal of patience and a great deal of forethought to overcome and in order to have this matter work out equitably and well. Nevertheless, as I pointed out a year ago when speaking on this matter, the United States, although at first dubious about it, finally brought in unemployment insurance for fishermen and it has apparently worked reasonably well. In Britain, where they refused to do it for many years, it was brought in almost ten years ago and it has worked there, as well as in some European nations such as, I believe, Holland and Norway. Hence, given good will and co-operation on both sides-and when I say "both sides" I mean the administration on the one end and the industry on the other-there should not be too much trouble in solving this problem.
I think the situation which arises is perhaps necessary but rather unfortunate; but since this matter is now to the fore we must face it. The minister told us this morning that the contributions will start next April, I think it is, and that the benefits will be payable at the beginning of January, 1958. It is quite a long while to wait. In other words, seven or eight years will have expired from the time this matter was first raised in the house. I recall that Gordon Higgins, the then hon. member for St. John's East, raised this matter and discussed it even before the reference to it which I made a little while ago. Hence it has been a subject of discussion for at least six years now. Another two years will elapse before it finally comes into effect. But it is something which, I understand, will be of incalculable benefit to the fishing industry. It is something which is badly needed.
I want to commend the minister and the officials of his department who have given this matter a great deal of study and have listened to the representations which have been made in this house. We are at least embarking now on a road which, although there are going to be a good many hills, some ditches and probably a few boulders to surmount, will in the end, I think, straighten out and provide a method of assistance to the industry which will contribute to the economy of Canada as a whole.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to interject a word or two at this point in the discussion. I think it would be only fair to say that members supporting this government, either in the house or outside

the house or both, have also pressed that a plan such as this be made possible.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to prolong the discussion on this matter. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni said practically everything that I would say and there is no need of repeating it. However, I should like to say this with respect to the question of fishermen being brought under the act. When the act was set up in 1940 I was a member of the house. A committee of this house worked that act over for some considerable time. At that time a proposal was made as to the advisability of bringing fishermen under the act. Having had no experience with unemployment insurance in the country most of the members of the house at that time, including that committee, were reluctant to try to include fishermen until such time as the commission had been set up, had functioned and, as a result of that experience, it could be determined whether it was practical or otherwise to bring the fishermen in.
Up until the last few years most of us were doubtful whether fishermen could be included. Of course there would be no difficulty where the trawlers are operating and are marketing their fish at fish plants. That is something that is relatively simple. But there is a large group of fishermen who are selfemployed; and it is going to take a little bit of manoeuvring and study to set up the mechanics that are necessary in order to include them. But with the experience the commission has now had and with the field workers they have plus the officials of the Department of Fisheries-the minister has many inspectors and others in the field who can greatly assist-I am reasonably sure that the unemployment insurance commission can set up the necessary machinery. I also think the amendment to section 45 (2) is going to bring considerable relief with respect to the problem we had last winter, but I am not going to go into that matter now. I merely wanted to identify myself with my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and indicate support for the remarks that he made. I think he dealt with the matter very well and that there is no need of my taking up any more time of the committee.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, my views on this legislation are well known. I see no reason why I should take up the time of the committee at this time in repeating what I have already said previously on numerous occasions. On behalf of my constituents and of the fishermen of my province generally I merely wish to take this opportunity to express to the Minister of Labour and to his colleagues my appreciation for bringing in this legislation at this time.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chariman, like other members of the house, I am glad to see this legislation come forward because it has been obvious for a long time that the fishermen should be included in the unemployment insurance program. Fishermen are faced with the same problems as those which are faced by other members of the working force when, through no fault of their own, they are unable to work and to provide for their families. As the hon. member for Hamilton West said this morning, the members of our party, along with other members of the house, have pressed for a number of years that this legislation should be brought forward, and we are glad to see that it has finally appeared. Fishermen play a very important part in, and make a great contribution to, our national economy and they should be allowed to contribute to and benefit from our unemployment insurance program like the other members of the working force. I regret that it will not be until January 1, 1958 that they can begin receiving benefits. However, I am glad to see the legislation coming forward, and I believe it is a good measure.


Mr. Bell:: I wonder if I might interject a word here to the effect that this change in the contribution weeks from 30 to 24, while it is a step in the right direction, will not completely solve the problem of the dock workers at Saint John and to a slightly less degree in Halifax. We have received many representations and we know the seasonal difficulties which they face. We know, Mr. Chairman, that it is almost impossible for them, in view of the length of the season on the St. Lawrence now, to get in much more than 20 weeks. I say that this will help some of them, and it is a step that will relieve the situation for part of the group that found themselves in difficulty under the act when it was changed. I simply put that reservation forward and say that we will have to watch their problem. They do not qualify under the seasonal benefits because of the length of their season during the year. They are under the divisor system at present, by their own choosing, but it also has shown more disparity under the new act than formerly.
We must continue to examine the qualifying period and also the rates of benefit for this important group of workers in our maritime economy. We appreciate the new legislation that will eventually bring in the fishermen to insurance benefits. They are going through a transitional period now, and as part-time workers are trying to build up their interest in this industry. It will be of assistance, as has been mentioned. I do not go along with the worries that have been

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration expressed by the hon. member for New Westminster. I feel that the problem he has suggested is one that is more for the actuaries.


Mr. Mclvor:: I would suggest now that a fishing trip be provided to Newfoundland for the minister by the hon. member who has just spoken.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time; now?


Milton Fowler Gregg: the third reading of the bill. 1
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Immigration branch-
65. Administration of the Immigration Act, $950,650.


Mr. Patterson:: Last evening at the adjournment I was just beginning to make a few observations with respect to the immigration laws as they affect Canadian citizens of East Indian origin. I had also indicated that I was speaking not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the other members of this group from British Columbia. We discussed these various matters, and we are in agreement.
I feel that Canadian citizens of East Indian origin should receive consideration by the minister and his department. We have a number of them, of course, in British Columbia. The great majority of them live in the lower mainland area and over on Vancouver island. These people are British citizens because they come from nations that belong to the British commonwealth of nations. They feel, and I believe they are justified in feeling this way, that they have been discriminated against so far as immigration requirements are concerned. I have had the privilege of getting to know a number of these people. I believe I can safely say that they are very industrious and law-abiding. In addition to that, considerable numbers of them become employers, and I feel that should be taken into consideration by the minister. They set up business, such as sawmills and other industries, and employ

a considerable number of workmen. I believe that in this way they make a very valuable contribution to the various communities in which they are located.
As we read the immigration Act and consider the regulations approved by order in council P.C. 1956/785 of May 24, 1956, we find that this discrimination is pointed out in a very graphic manner. Immigrants who have come from the various South American countries and also from Israel, Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey as well as some other peoples, are granted privileges that far exceed the privileges granted the citizens of East Indian origin. In addition, we find that the privileges that are granted to these people when they become residents of the country are not afforded the people of East Indian origin until they have become citizens of the country which follows after the five-year residence qualification is fulfilled. I believe that this is another regulation which should be considered, and some amendment introduced to take care of that discrimination.
I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, to deal at any further length with this particular subject, except to place on record a telegram which I just received this morning. It is signed by Kuldeep Singh Bains, the secretary of the East Indian-Canadian welfare association. This gentleman and two others came here just a short time ago as a delegation to present the views of the East Indian people. The telegram is as follows:
Further to our representation on July 12, 1956 re immigration regulations as they affect Canadian citizens of east Indian origin.
We respectfully request you to urge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the hon. J. W. Pickersgill, to allow entry into Canada of the close relatives of Canadian citizens of East Indian origin on the same basis and the same classes of people as from Europe, Middle East and Latin-America. We shall appreciate you taking up this matter during the present debate in commons on immigration estimates.
I do not think anything further needs to be said on this matter. The minister is aware of the problems and he is aware of the representations that have been made. This morning, I just want to place myself on record in this connection. I believe he is also aware of the support that we in this group are giving to their requests.


Mr. Philpott:: Mr. Chairman, I assure you I am not going to delay unduly the committee, but I want to put on record a few thoughts on what seems to be a very important subject, namely, that which has been referred to already by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat and by the hon. member for Vancouver East.
First, may I say that I take direct issue with the hon. member for Kamloops in his

reference to the minister's handling of individual cases. I do not know whether many members handle more immigration cases than I do myself. I 'certainly hope not, because if they all have as many as I have the minister must have a great many headaches indeed. I just want to say this for what it is worth. In all the cases that I have taken up with him he has shown an infinite capacity for taking pains; he never lets the letter of the law stand in the way of the humanitarian interest, and I find him guided indeed by that in which the hon. member for Kamloops said he was lacking, namely, the milk of human kindness. I have a letter on my desk this morning about the reunion of one particular family whose names I will not mention, but that one letter alone would repay, I think, in great measure the pains the minister took to get this particular case settled satisfactorily.
Second, I want to say that, in view of the fact that I do have a good many immigration cases, and indeed I had them before I was a member of this house, I think the minister deserves credit for the great improvement in the new regulations which were published on May 24 of this year. They are very much clearer and simpler and they go right to the heart and -cut through many of the worst difficulties which we had.
As I see it, as far as we in British Columbia are concerned, the most general grievance we get is that immigration from Asian Countries is not treated on the same basis as immigration from other countries. I think it is a very big and very complicated subject. I know also, in regard to Chinese immigration, we have that genial gentleman, Mr. Foon Sien, coming down here from Vancouver every year and putting up a very good case for the Chinese community of Canada. We know that matter is being very well handled and also, Mr. Chairman, if we examine the number of immigrants who come in we see that there is no real cause for complaint. On the general level the numbers who are actually coming in are very much higher than they were for many years.
I want to say just a few words in regard to the East Indian, and on this I am speaking, I think, for all of my Liberal colleagues from British Columbia. We have thought of this a great deal over many years; we have followed the different delegations that have been down. The one that was here this year, which I had the honour to accompany when it visited the minister, I thought was of the highest calibre of any delegation from British Columbia that has yet come from that particular community. So that we may clearly understand the problem, may I say the East Indian
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration community is comprised of about 2,000 men, women and children, most of whom have been in this country for a great many years. Incidentally, it is worth noting that over the years, whereas all the other communities we can think of, the Chinese community, the Ukrainian community, the German community, or any of the others that we can think of in terms of racial groups, have by and large increased, this is not true of the East Indian community because, by and large, they have just barely been able to hold their own. The number that has gone out has more than balanced the number that has come in and the natural increase.
I will not go into old unhappy history, and there were same very unhappy moments, as many of us will recall, particularly in 1914 when there was a very sensational, a very explosive episode, when someone tried to get in a whole shipload of East Indian immigrants at one particular time. Some members in this house will recall the agitation which almost led to steps to prevent that, but that is old, unhappy history, which could be and should be forgotten. I think it is fair to say-and I think the members of parliament of all four political parties representing British Columbia constituencies will bear me out when I say this-there is no community, there is no racial group of any kind, that has a better record for obedience to the law and for general unostentatious good citizenship than the East Indian group. You hardly ever hear of an East Indian being on relief. I admit you sometimes do hear of their being up in police court for driving their trucks too fast. That seems to be their most ostentatious bad habit. They are a family people. The vast majority of them are engaged in the woodworking business. Since they are a family people they place the newcomers according to a family basis.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Vancouver East is not in the house at the moment because, while I agree substantially with what he said about the treaty being too restrictive, I think perhaps he overlooks the fact-and I helped to get the treaty, by the way, because I had worked with the East Indians for many years, long before I became a member of parliament-that the treaty itself is a great forward step, and was hailed as a great forward step by the whole East Indian community of British Columbia as well as, of course, the government of India, because it gave the Indians what they had never had before, namely, at least some guaranteed right for a certain limited number of entries into Canada. But, in my opinion -and I am quite convinced that it is the opinion of a substantial majority of the
7202	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration members of parliament of all parties from British Columbia-the treaty as it now stands is too restrictive. The quota number from India is only 150 a year. That is too restrictive. If we take actual figures, Mr. Chairman, we will see that over the years they have not even got in the quota. Here again the minister deserves a great tribute for his personal attention to this particular problem. We did manage to clean up the great backlog of complicated cases of people who have been held up for a good many years that the minister did allow in more or less to wipe the slate clean. But we do find every year, when it comes to examining those who are going to come in under the 150 quota, there are just not enough places to go around and so it always ends in very keen and bitter disappointment to some of the East Indian community in British Columbia.
What I want to submit, Mr. Chairman, is this. I am not going to repeat anything about the brief; the minister knows all about it, and all the members from British Columbia know all about it because we have all read it, and I think all the members, without exception, gave letters of support to the East Indians from British Columbia. Certainly, if they did not give them direct support they did give moral support. I urge the minister to give earnest consideration to the relaxation of the general regulations in regard to immigration from India of those people of Sikh origin. Of course, everybody knows, or most people from British Columbia know, that all of our immigration from India is of Sikh religion. They all come from that one part of India; they all believe in one god. They are not idol worshippers. As a matter of fact, if we were to go far enough back we would find that they are of the same racial stock as we ourselves, if anyone is interested in that, although personally I am not.
I do believe that the general effect of the regulation is to make it too restrictive on immigration from India. I believe public opinion, in British Columbia particularly, would support a considerable relaxation in the quota provisions, if we have such a thing or whether or not we have a treaty. Personally I do not think a treaty is necessary. I think the treaty has outlived its usefulness. But whether or not we continue the treaty I do think we could easily absorb at least double the number of immigrants from East India that we have been absorbing, and perhaps even three times as many. I am sure we could do that without creating any problem of racial antagonism or unemployment or relief.
[Mr. Philpott.l


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Conservative members from British Columbia I should like to also urge upon the minister that he reconsider the provisions with regard to immigration from India. One significant fact is that India is a sister nation in the commonwealth and I think that should be borne in mind at all times.
Probably many hon. members of the house had the interesting privilege of interviewing the members of the delegation which was here last month representing the East Indian Canadian citizens welfare association. The three delegates were Tara Singh Bains, Narantan Singh Grewall and Rajindi Singh Mayo. All of these men are leaders in their communities. I had not been acquainted before with Tara Singh Bains but I had known or known of the other two.
Mr. Grewall came to Canada in 1926 and has established a substantial lumber business in the Fraser Valley. He has served on the municipal council of the area in which he resides and I believe is to be a candidate in the next provincial election. He has been an outstanding citizen. Just last year he built a school in his home village in India and he and his wife went there to attend the official opening which was done by Mr. Williams of the Canadian high commissioner's office in New Delhi. This year Mrs. Grewall is building a health centre adjacent to the school. This promotion of good feeling between Canada and India merits the highest praise.
Mr. Rajindi Singh Mayo is also an extremely interesting man. His father came here as an immigrant many years ago and established a large lumbering industry on Vancouver island. The father died within the last year or two and this young man who is in his early twenties is now the head of this business. If you please, he pilots his own private plane when he comes east, which he does on frequent occasions. I understand that his fellow representatives did not fly east with him, but he flew his own plane to come here to interview members of parliament.
These facts will give hon. members some idea of the type of citizens who are asking for reconsideration of the present provisions. They are particularly upset by the fact that people from Egypt, of which we have heard in the last few weeks, Lebanon, Turkey and the countries of Central and South America are in a preferred position. They appear to have more right to bring in their relatives than these people from a sister nation of the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
commonwealth. I do not think that is a proper situation. In the last paragraph of their brief they say:
Alternatively, we submit that as Canadian citizens the very least that we should ask for is that we should be treated no worse than Latin Americans and Levantines, and that we should be given the same rights that they are given as to bringing in relatives. We ask that regulation 21 be widened to let in relatives of Canadian citizens of East Indian origin, to the same extent as regulation 20 (c) admits Latin American and Levantine relatives.
I submit that that request is a reasonable one and I hope the minister can assure the committee today that there will be some change made in favour of these people who have proved themselves to be such worthy citizens of Canada.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I feel I must say a few words on this because it so happens that there are more East Indians in my constituency than in any constituency in Canada. I may say also that at one time I worked for the father of the young man to whom the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has referred. I might say that it was almost impossible to quit his employment because when any of his employees did quit he would come up from Victoria to find what in the world was wrong that had caused one of his men to leave his employ. There cannot be any doubt about the justice of their claim for freer admission to Canada. I think that has been proved quite fully.
There is another angle to this matter which I think we should consider. In our immigration policy we are of necessity dealing very closely with our relationships with other parts of the world. I submit that at this time it is essential that the relationships between the people of North America and of Asia should be strengthened in every possible way. I can think of nothing that would tend more to consolidate friendly feelings between our own part of the world and the new states of Asia than a more generous immigration policy for people from the new countries which have arisen in Asia during the last few years.
I think we should also consider this matter along these lines. While all of us of this generation pride ourselves on being free of racial prejudice, nevertheless all of us are more or less conscious of the great differences between the different families of the human race. But I think that state of mind is vanishing under the impact of modern ideas. In my own lifetime I have observed a tremendous change in the attitude of people toward those of other races. It may well be that within a few years the apprehension which is now quite widespread among the people of our particular branch of the human family about an influx of people from other branches of
the human family will appear to our grandchildren to have been rather fantastic and medieval. I do not think we should be a bit frightened about having people of other racial origins joining our national community.
For one thing I do not think there is going to be any tremendous influx. But I do think it would be of great importance to strengthen all commonwealth ties, and I think it would reduce the frictions felt by a section of the human family which has been exploited for many centuries if we were to adopt steps such as have been urged today.
Before I sit down I want to say another word with regard to immigration policy that I think is quite important. It seems to me that the minister has two jobs: one to encourage people to come to Canada and the other to keep certain people out. I have been wondering of late whether we are not spending too much time, too much energy and too much money on the latter function, to the detriment perhaps of the former function.
I have spoken to the minister about this matter on more than one occasion and suggested to him that, for instance, the elaborate steps that are taken to make sure that no subversive elements from eastern Europe reach our shores are ridiculous on two scores. The first score is that under the present regulations, people coming from eastern Europe and communist-dominated countries must manage somehow or other to get into western Europe and live there for two years before they can apply to come to Canada. As I have suggested to the minister on more than one occasion, a determined subversive element from a communist country who had been assigned the task of subverting our democratic way of life in Canada would think nothing whatever of that two years probationary period in western Europe in order to qualify to enter Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman does not think that these remarks would be more appropriate on the estimates of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice.


Colin Cameron: No, I do not think so, because these are matters of the regulations of the minister's department. Admittedly the minister calls on the Department of Justice, I believe, to aid him in this particular function, but it is primarily his function.
Then, as I have also suggested to the minister, I think it is quite naive of us to suggest that if a communist organization is going to send a spy or a subversive character who is going to upset our whole society he will come in here as an obvious resident of eastern Europe speaking with a strong foreign accent. In fact, as I suggested to the minister
7204	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration once, he is far more likely to come here with the very best social credentials and perhaps be a guest out at Rideau Hall. This is the kind of people that might be our most dangerous enemies. I think there is almost too much stress laid on the idea of attempting to screen people in regard to their ability to subvert our way of life, and I should like to see the minister be a little less careful in that regard and a little more careful in regard to the use of our immigration policy to enhance the friendly relations that we have with other parts of the world.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the subject of immigration to Canada of relatives of East Indians who are Canadian citizens, I think that all the general principles applicable have been discussed and I shall not repeat them beyond indicating my support for what has been said. But I should like to ask the minister to deal, when he replies, with one problem which concerns us now and possibly will still be a problem even if the quota is relaxed or a more generous policy of admission is adopted. Under the present arrangment, of the number allowed to come in here from India, so many are assigned to the applications originating within India and so many to applications by Canadian citizens in Canada for the admission of their relatives from India. I have had two or three of them outstanding for, I am sure, three or four years. In discussions with the minister's officials, when I have been doing everything I can to put as much pressure as I can, I admit, to get these applications favourably considered, I have always had courteous treatment from the officials but unfortunately entirely negative results in the ones I now have in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has not always been true.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say "in the ones I now have in mind." I have not had a uniformly negative result, but there are two or three that have stuck over the last few years. Although these are admissible on all other grounds there is just no room on the quota. If I understand the information correctly, and, as pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver South, there is room on the other branch of the quota, that is to say, the number assigned to applications originating in India, this, of course, creates great misunderstanding.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That has not been true in the past two years. The whole quota has been taken up in the past two years. It was true earlier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I must have misunderstood the information. I thought it was still the situation. If the quota is to be enlarged or if the restrictions are to be relaxed, could the minister say what will be done to avoid that situation and also to avoid, where possible, the other bitterness that arises where these East Indians in Canada will come to their member and say, "I had my application for the admission of my nephew on file long before an application for another relative who I know has been admitted, and I have not yet had mine in"? I appreciate that it is difficult to work out a consecutive numerical priority because there are other factors that must be considered. All I shall say, therefore, is that the present situation gives rise to a great deal of dissatisfaction because a man is bound to be upset when, in discussing with a friend the admission of their relatives, he finds out that the other has had somebody admitted and the application was not submitted for some particular time after that for his own relative. I would appreciate it if the minister would say a word on those two aspects of the matter.


Mr. Herridge:: It is one minute before one o'clock, and I can say all I have to say in that time. I merely rise to express my support for the representations made by members of this group and other members of the house on behalf of the East Indians of British Columbia and the Canadians of Chinese origin. I trust that the minister will respond favourably to the representations made by the organizations that represent these people, to the briefs they have presented and to the pleadings of the members of this house. Surely, when we can admit, by order in council, persons who have been war criminals and traitors to France and persons with criminal records from other countries, we should be able to admit the relatives of these very decent Canadians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In view of the fact that we were cut off rather sharply last evening, I should be delighted if hon. members would give me the indulgence to reply on these two subjects now. It would not take me very long, and perhaps my heart would be more touched now than it would be after the appeals that have been made grow cold, and perhaps on an empty stomach I would do it better than on a full one.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Howard Charles Green: They were dealing with a different race.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not say he was not
as representative then of public opinion as he is representative now. The only point I am trying to make, and I am trying to make it in as non-controversial a way as I can, is that these fashions do change and they are capable of changing again. I have always tried-I think hon. members will give me credit for this; indeed some of them think I am too frank-to be completely honest in expressing my views to these delegations I have received. I said to this East Indian delegation that came to see me the other day that one of the reasons why they have this favourable public opinion at the present time is that they have become good Canadian citizens and are accepted in the community. I said to them; "Now, let us be completely honest about this and recognize that one of the reasons that situation exists is that your numbers are comparatively small".
I think it is quite apparent from the experiences of other countries that we are not going to contribute anything to the welfare of these people or to the welfare of this country if we admit newcomers of any group in such numbers as to create problems, tensions and strains in this country that it would be desirable not to have.
Having said that, I want to be somewhat more encouraging. I have been quite disturbed by the fact that, although we have no adequate security tests in China-and I think there is something to be said for
Supply

Citizenship and Immigration security screening despite what the hon. member for Nanaimo has said-we have admitted far more immigrants from China than we have from India. I do not think that is reasonable and I do not think it is right. I think perhaps there should be some more because these applications are geared to the number of Canadian citizens here. Speaking generally, my view is that there can be discrimination in immigration but once you let people into this country there should be no discrimination inside the country. I think that is what is really important.
If selective immigration means anything it means you are discriminating between one person and another and between one country and another, and we are going to go on doing that no matter what government is in office, even if the friends of the hon. gentleman from Nanaimo should get into office. I read the part of their new platform relating to immigration which suggested to me that they are no longer even Liberals in a hurry but that on the subject of immigration they are perhaps slower than any of the rest of us.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: You had better stick to the subject if you want to eat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will try to get back to the subject but there are so many bypaths that it is so interesting to tread. To get back to the subject, I am not impressed, though I understand why the East Indian delegation is impressed, by their objections to East Indians being in category Cd) rather than in category (c) of the regulations of May 24. The reason I am not impressed is that these regulations confer no rights of any kind upon anybody. All they do is to indicate the categories of persons whose applications are considered by the department.
The fact that one of these people applies means nothing except that the application will be processed and if that person can satisfy all the requirements of the Immigration Act he will be admitted. I admit it does look on the face of it-and I am going to deal first with Egypt, Israel, Lebanon and Turkey-as though there were discrimination in favour of people from those countries compared with people from India until you stop to think that all these are are just criteria for admission. There are virtually no Egyptians in this country and the applications we do receive from Egypt are almost entirely from people who are not Egyptians but people who happen to be living there and who are English or French or in many cases Armenian in origin. In some cases, of course, they are Jews, people whose life in Egypt is more difficult than it has

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration been at other times. The reason we put Egypt in this category was solely to avoid having to ask for quite a considerable number of orders in council in these cases.
The same thing applies to Turkey. There are practically no Turks in this country and there is no desire on the part of Turks to come here. But there are Armenians and other communities in Turkey where the people have relatives in this country, and it is just for administrative convenience that these two countries are in this category.
That is not quite true of Israel or Lebanon. In the case of Israel I think I have said several times-I know the hon. member for Cartier understands this very well-that Israel is a country of immigration and the government of Israel is very anxious to keep able-bodied people in that country, and I doubt if there are many members of the house who do not sympathize with their desire, particularly at this time. We do everything we can to discourage applications from these people. However, there are special circumstances, quite often circumstances of a humanitarian character, and it is more convenient again not to have to ask for orders in council. That is the only reason. I do not think it would matter very much to these three countries and Lebanon too if they were in category (d).
In the case of Lebanon, it is true we have quite a considerable number of Lebanese in this country. There are no large colonies but they are scattered over the country. We have a person of Lebanese origin in the Senate. In many ways Lebanon is almost more a European country than it is an Asiatic country but again immigration is very small. According to my recollection, it is much smaller than the number of Indians who come, taking one year with another. I have not checked the figures this morning.
So far as the South American and Central American countries are concerned, the same thing is even truer. These countries are also countries of immigration and the local inhabitants very rarely come here as immigrants. But there are a certain number of refugees who have gone to South America at one time or another, particularly since the war, and who have relatives here. We could not take them right after the war because of shipping and other difficulties. Some of these people want to come here. We could easily strike all these countries out and deal with applicants by order in council, but it is a little more cumbersome. However, in any case no rights are conferred. It is just a matter of administrative convenience.
Having made this explanation, I hoped that would satisfy the East Indians that there
IMr. Pickersgill.]
was no intention to discriminate in these matters in the sense of saying that some people are better than others. It is just an administrative device. I think it would be far better to increase the Indian quota than it would be to change the category. I discussed this matter with my colleagues this morning and I am authorized to say that it is the intention of the government immediately to get in touch with the government of India with a view to increasing the quota.
The reason I say I think it is better to increase the quota is that under the quota the East Indians, as I have explained to them two or three times, really have two chances to come in. The really close relatives come in like other people from Asia and certain other parts of the world as close relatives and they are not counted in the quota. In addition, they have the opportunity to apply under the quota and I feel that the quota should be large enough that most of the really deserving cases can be included in the quota every year without excluding other immigrants who have not got relatives in Canada.
India, Pakistan and Ceylon are the only three countries in Asia with which we have these agreements. In that sense they are preferred over other countries. But I think this business of preference or anything of that sort appears in a different light once it is understood that this business is not a question of rights but is merely a question of administrative convenience. These categories never were in the regulations before. As a result of certain difficulties we encountered in administering the law under the old regulations it was felt desirable to put them in. My friend the hon. member for Vancouver South made representations to me to the effect that, if we could make our regulations comprehensible, it would be a good thing. I had my doubts about it and I am not sure that my doubts were not justified.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You mean you would rather have them incomprehensible?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I personally would not rather have them incomprehensible but I was afraid that the moment they were made too comprehensible we would have exactly this kind of academic argument. As I said, I am a pragmatist. The hon. member for Kamloops and I had a difference on the same point yesterday. I believe in dealing with specific problems without enunciating broad general principles. I think perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver South and I would not quite agree on that point either.
I think the most important thing is to see

that substantially all the deserving cases are dealt with and that the mechanics of dealing with them are much less important. I hope it may be possible to work out something that will accomplish that end.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a quarter past one. I am hungry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should have liked to say something about the Chinese too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do it after lunch.


An hon. Member:: Do it on the item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could do it right after lunch, if hon. gentlemen are getting too hungry for me to do it now.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
It being fifteen minutes after one o'clock, the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I hate to hold up my own estimates, but I think I had better finish what I was saying when hon. gentlemen got so hungry at 1.15 they felt I should not continue.
I want now to say a word about Chinese immigration. As hon. members are well aware, there was practically no Chinese immigration from the time of the passing of the Chinese Immigration Act in 1923 until its repeal on May 14, 1947. Since that time the regulations respecting immigration from China have been the same as those respecting other countries in Asia. This was true until May 24 of this year when we took out of the regulations all references to persons of Asian racial origin, and geographical areas and actual countries were substituted in the regulations. This removed one anomaly which I must say troubled me a great deal. It was not a very important thing, but it was a source of annoyance to a certain num-oer of people. For instance, persons of east Indian and Chinese origin who were living, say in Trinidad, found it more difficult to get into Canada than persons of other origins in Trinidad and that did seem rather absurd, especially if the family had been there for several generations. That is no longer true.
From 1946 to 1955, including both years, there have been 14,104 Chinese immigrants landed in Canada which I think most hon. members will agree is a considerable number in 10 years. Now, from May 14, 1947 to December 18, 1950 the upper age limits of
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration these Chinese immigrants who were children of Canadian citizens was 18, and on December 28, 1950 it was raised to 21. Then, on June 28, 1951, my predecessor, the Minister of Finance, made a special concession whereby, in compassionate circumstances, he recommended to the governor in council that the governor in council should admit unmarried children of over 21 and under 25. This concession, though it was never part of the regulations and never part of the law, was continued until I announced in the estimates committee last year on March 10 that I did not propose to make any more such recommendations. I gave the reasons at that time, and I do not think there is any need to repeat them now. This was meant to cover a special situation and that special situation has I think really disappeared. Indeed, there has been very little protest about this change.
On the same day, I did indicate that special consideration would be given to applications for parents where the father was over 65 or the mother over 60. This has been formally incorporated into the regulations as of May 24, 1956. I may say that, though the numbers who have come have not been very large, this change was greatly appreciated, according to the information that has come to me, by the Chinese Canadian community. I think it is something that would commend itself to all hon. members, and I am glad to say that it is now part of the law.
Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East spoke about some of the difficulties he had had in some of his cases. I want to say at the outset that I very much appreciate the kind references with which he began his indictment of my administration. I may say there is no member on either side of the house with whom I find it pleasanter to deal than the hon. member for Vancouver East. I think you may describe us as a mutual admiration society most of the time, but we do have our differences. I want to speak about those points he raised. I must say I was just a little bit hurt-I would not have been if it had been anyone else-when the hon. gentleman said there was too much red tape in my department. I do not think anybody has done more to cut red tape than I, at any rate, have tried to do since I have been minister, particularly when I have been approached as seductively as I always am by the hon. gentleman.
The hon. gentleman did mention some sad cases where he had not been able to melt my heart or the hearts of the officials, and he raised some question as to whether I was a father. I did my best to give a demonstration of that in the gallery this morning and
7208	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I was very disappointed the hon. gentleman was not here to see it. My views on that subject are pretty well known. I want to explain quite seriously to hon. members why we did establish this rule to which the hon. gentleman took exception, that both parents must come into the country if the children are to be admitted. I do not say it was true of the great majority of Chinese Canadians, but it was true of a minority, that they found it more convenient to keep their wives in China, bring up their children in China until they had reached an advanced age, and then apply for them to come here. I do not think that is what we want to have happen in this country. We want immigrants to come here as families and bring up their children in this country from the earliest age possible, so that, when they grow up, they will really be Canadians. It is for that reason this rule was made. It was made of general application because there was a considerable number of cases where, in our experience, we found there was no desire to apply for the wife, often no desire to apply for the daughters, but only for the sons. It is not true that we insist that any of the children come with the mother. The wife can be applied for alone and the children can come subsequently in any order as long as they are admissible.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: If the father is living in Canada and the mother has passed away, will the children come then?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh yes, we do not insist on the resurrection of the mother.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Some of the conditions you impose are almost as difficult.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Vancouver East did refer to a number of sad cases. I admit that there are some cases which, on the face of them, look very difficult. There is one thing about which I should like to remind the committee, and that is that we can only have so many people in our office in Hong Kong. We have to send highly trained people there if they are to do the work at all efficiently. The working conditions are frightful and the amount of work, the pressures and difficulties are much greater than in any other immigration office anywhere in the world. Every time we spend two or three days of the time of the officers in Hong Kong dealing with one of these hard cases, we are holding up 10 or 12 applications of equally worthy people who, in most cases, would be readily admissible. That is the
[Mr. Pickersgill.1

real explanation as to why we often appear to be hard hearted; because we do know from our experience in the administration that every time we have to take infinite pains with one of these difficult cases about which we have genuine doubts we are holding up the other work of the office in Hong Kong.
One might ask why we bother to take these pains. The hon. member for Nanaimo thinks security screening is totally unnecessary but I do not. The fact is there are no vital statistics in China that we can rely on. We do know there is a great deal of fraud practised in some of these cases and the hon. member for Vancouver East himself said yesterday that, in some of these cases, these people were simply using Canada as an avenue to the United States and although I cannot cite a single case I am afraid that has sometimes been true.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Others do that, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Others do it too; that is quite right. We try to stop it in every case but it is extremely difficult to stop it in these cases because we do not have access to the kind of records that are available to us in practically every other country from which we receive immigrants.
For all these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that, as from today, no further new requests will be entertained for the review of a Chinese case in which there has already been one review made by the department after the original rejection. Such files will be closed and will not be reopened unless it should be alleged that there has been some actual wrong-doing on the part of an official of the immigration branch.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I just have that again; no further new requests will be entertained for further review-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No further requests will be entertained for the review of a case in which there has already been one review made by the department after the original rejection.


Howard Charles Green: Will that apply to existing cases or will that apply only in the future?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it will apply only to new cases. Any case that is presently under review even if it is being reviewed for the fourth or fifth time will be completed.


Mr. Winch:: That is the most damnably unfair statement I have ever heard.


Howard Charles Green: It is very unfair.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it is terrible. That kind of decision will create more difficulties than can be imagined.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: The reason for taking this position, which I have considered with great care, is that these prolonged and very expensive reviews of cases which have already been carefully reviewed, some of them four or five times, occupy the time of the officials who would otherwise be engaged in dealing with current applications, and thereby cause unnecessary delays in dealing with the applications which come to the department from day to day, and which, in most cases, are much more deserving of consideration than those which have already been considered.
With, as I say, the limited staff which is all we are justified in having at Hong Kong, it is just not possible to have these repeated reviews of old cases and keep up with the current volume of work.
There is one other aspect of this matter of Chinese immigration about which I also want to say something. Hon. members and particularly those from British Columbia but from other parts of the country as well will have received, as I have, a great many representations about certain changes it was felt would be desirable in the regulations with respect to the admission of Chinese.
One of them, which the hon. member for Vancouver East referred to yesterday, I must say on the face of it appears very absurd, and that is the requirement that Chinese Canadian citizens go to Hong Kong and spend a great deal of money in order to get married and bring their wives back here when, if they did not have to make that expense, they could use the money for other purposes such as getting established.
As I say, on the face of it, it seems quite absurd that there should be any such regulation at all. It is not applied generally to immigrants from other countries but there are reasons which I think are known quite well to those hon. members who have had much to do with these cases which make this an extremely difficult problem. However, I have consulted my colleagues about this and I have received their approval to announce today that as an experiment the department will authorize the entry to Canada of fiancees of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister speak more slowly, please. I am endeavouring to record his words.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The department will authorize the entry to Canada of fiancees of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin, under the following conditions.
They will be examined at Hong Kong as though they were immigrants. If they are found to meet the immigration requirements
they will be given a Canadian non-immigration visa, provided they are in possession of a travel document authorizing their re-entry to Hong Kong.
The marriage will have to take place within 30 days after the arrival of the fiancee and the marriage will have to be performed according to Canadian law. Upon production of a marriage certificate issued by the appropriate provincial authorities an order in council will be passed authorizing the fiancee's landing, and landing will be granted.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is a big improvement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The third condition is that the applicant in Canada will have to make a cash deposit of $1,000 at the time of the application and this deposit will be returned to the applicant after the marriage has taken place or in a case where it is evident that the fiancee cannot be admitted to Canada as not meeting the usual requirements-that is to say that when the examination is made entry is refused for medical or other reasons

the money will be returned. In any case where the marriage does not take place within 30 days after the arrival of the fiancee in Canada, the cash deposit will be forfeited and the fiancee will be deported.
While this procedure seems very stringent it will, I think, be quite possible for every bona fide applicant to comply with it, because the cash deposit and the cost of the transportation are about equal. In fact, I think it would cost more than $1,000 for the return passage to Hong Kong and therefore the question of putting up that amount of cash as a deposit will not be any serious impediment.
I do think this is a humane way of dealing with a very difficult problem. If hon. members felt they had to insist I could give reasons why we have to take the kind of precautions we do, but I would prefer not to do so.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that the latter part of what he has said is strict but it certainly is an improvement and I am certain it will be welcomed by all of us and by the Chinese Canadian citizens who are looking forward to marriage.
I do not wish to take up the time of the house unduly but I do want to say most definitely that if I had not heard from the lips of a cabinet minister, let alone the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the statement about the closure of Chinese immigration cases after certain procedures I would not have believed that such a course of action could be possible.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
During the time of the minister's predecessor in office there were cases that were rejected by the department. I myself appealed some of these cases. The then minister of citizenship and immigration, who is now the Minister of Finance, rejected the appeal. A change-over in portfolios occurred. I still thought there was an injustice and I took up the matter with the present minister. He saw the justice of the case and reversed the decision. I think that is justice and I think it is what should be expected if there is a good case to be presented. If this new policy had been in effect then, those cases which the present minister considered were legitimate would have been automatically closed out.
Under the policy which is to go into effect as of today there will be just the one review and then the door is closed. The reason given by the minister is that they have not the staff and cannot spend the time, that if they do, it will mean that other cases cannot be processed as speedily as they otherwise would. That may be so, but I think it is unalterably and utterly disgraceful to put that forward as a reason for closing out other cases. If you have not sufficient staff, you should get more staff; if you have not the trained staff you should train the number required. Why throw completely overboard every principle of British justice for the reasons outlined?
I think this is one of the most disgusting and disgraceful policies ever laid down in this parliament. Without saying any more, I think it is right that if a person has a case or if someone in a responsible position such as an attorney or member of parliament thinks he has a case, then whether there are 100,000 cases or one case he is entitled to full consideration. I hope the minister will take a second look at the decision he has made and reverse his view just as quickly as possible and remove this most despicable blot upon justice in Canada.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to comment in parliamentary language upon the decision just announced by the minister with respect to Chinese immigrant cases generally.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not apply to cases generally.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Those cases which have been reviewed once. I find it difficult to appreciate just what this government thinks it is trying to do when it announces a decision of this kind at this stage in the session after having delayed the estimates of this important department until this time. I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than that it


was done deliberately in order that the estimates of this department would not receive adequate discussion and examination.
For anyone to claim that he has regard for the humanitarian aspects of immigration and then to announce a decision such as the minister has just announced is a complete contradiction. There have been I should think hundreds if not thousands of cases which have been reviewed in periods up to five years, after which time it has been found that the application was a proper one and the person was admissible. We all know of cases not only in the field of immigration but in other fields such as pension applications where there have been constant and consistent reviews of applications. We have appeal board hearings, leave to re-open and right through the procedure. I know of one case where it was decided 20 years after an application for pension had been made that the application was justified and the pension was awarded.
That case concerned an individual, but here family relationships are involved. To close the door, now on the application by Chinese citizens of this country for the opportunity and the right to be reunited with their families is to my mind so heartless that a proper description of the decision is impossible. It is a policy of more restrictions, a policy which instead of relieving hardship and permitting a more humanitarian approach to the problem of immigration creates more hardships.
The minister is wont to say that there are no rights to immigration and he justifies his various actions and policies on that so-called principle. But not even the minister will deny that Canadian citizens have rights in the field of immigration as they have in other fields. There are cases in connection with Chinese immigration, as there are with immigration cases generally, where the applicant whose admission is sought is claimed to be a Canadian citizen. What sort of hearing will he get?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. gentleman confuses the issue may I say that I would never for one minute, and of course the law would not allow me to, in the case of anyone who can establish he is a Canadian citizen- the minister has no power and no one else has any power to keep such a person out of Canada. The hon. gentleman knows that perfectly well and there is no point in confusing the issue by referring to people outside the country who are Canadian citizens.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is every point in doing that because the thing the minister will not do is give such a person the opportunity to establish whether or not he is a Canadian

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
citizen. A person applies in Hong Kong or a parent in Canada applies for the admission from Hong Kong or from China of a son, daughter or other relative-it is mostly a son or daughter-who he claims is a Canadian citizen. What opportunity does that person have to have his case properly heard and have the issue settled? None.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is completely untrue.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will show why in a minute. Up until now the only chance he had was to apply for a review but that door is going to be closed to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true either. In any case where there is a claim made that the person is a Canadian citizen I would never for one minute refuse to receive any evidence at any time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What exceptions is the minister going to make to the policy announcement he made today?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am talking about applicants for immigration by persons of Chinese nationality. If the hon. gentleman will permit me to clarify this point, I am saying that when a person of Chinese origin claiming to be a son or daughter, under the age of 21 years, of a Canadian citizen applies and the application is refused by my department and it is brought up for review, there will be a most careful review once, but that we no longer propose to keep on reviewing time after time, having it passed from one hand to another, from one member of parliament to another, from one lawyer to another; having it take up a tremendous amount of time and wasting a tremendous amount of the taxpayers' money which should be devoted to the purpose for which parliament voted it, which is to bring immigrants into this country.
The hon. gentleman talks about those cases which he says were reviewed four or five times and where I took a view different from the view taken by my predecessor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or by your officials.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or by my officials. Before I closed the door on those 21 to 25 cases I asked that a full review be made of all outstanding cases in the department. There were a lot of cases where it appeared to me there was doubt. Perhaps foolishly, because one seems to get very little credit for anything of this sort that he does, I did give those people the benefit of the doubt. I can say honestly that there has not been one single case decided by my predecessor on which I have given a different view where I thought my predecessor was very clearly wrong and I was clearly right. In every
case where it appeared to me there was a sufficiently strong doubt I gave the benefit of the doubt to the applicant.
Not only that, but in those cases where I have reviewed an application more than once I have never found any new evidence which could do more than possibly change the shadow of a doubt. We do know that in Europe applicants do not get half the consideration that these cases get. There are, as I have said over and over again, no rights involved at all. No person who is not a Canadian citizen has a right to immigrate to this country, and the purpose of our immigration department and the purpose of voting money to bring immigrants into this country is to get the kind of people we want in this country to build up this country. If a large part of that money is going to be used to deal with doubtful cases, it seems to me that we are not using the money for the purpose for which parliament voted it.
There is no question of justice or injustice involved at all in this matter. It is purely a matter of administration. In most other countries we turn an applicant down and do not even look at the case again; that is the end of it. A far too great proportion of the time and energy of the department and of the minister is taken up with these Chinese cases. If the business of the department is to be done properly, we have to establish administrative procedures that are reasonably efficient.
There is another thing, and I think this is very important too. I do not see why we should spend days and days reviewing for the fifth time some doubtful case, and holding up the machinery which would otherwise allow the early reunion of Chinese Canadian families where there are no doubts at all and where the whole case is held up because the time of officials is taken with leafing over and over again the same old files. What is more, sir, a large part of this is just a business for the benefit of two or three lawyers who are not otherwise engaged in any very important practice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I felt that I was right a few moments earlier when I said that it was disgraceful that the estimates of this department should be brought on for discussion at this stage of the session. What the minister has just said proves conclusively the truth of what I have said. These statements just now made are much too important to let them go through in a matter of half an hour or three-quarters of an hour.
Let us go back to this question of rights. It embraces not only Chinese immigration but a very much wider field, and it is
7212	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration probably one of the most important policy matters that could arise in connection with this department. The minister says that there are no rights in connection with immigration. He says that the right of admission to Canada is determined in accordance with regulations; that is to say, whether a man is entitled to come into Canada or not is determined in accordance with the application of the regulations.
Before the lunch recess he said that the regulations confer no rights. That, of course, is a very narrow technical view, with which I disagree because there is such a thing as the rule of law, whether the minister recognizes it or not, and he does not usually recognize it. Under our law, which includes that field known as administrative law, once regulations are passed by order in council they have the force of law, and then the minister cannot or should not disregard them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor does he.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He most certainly does, because he makes flesh of one case and fowl of another in the application of his own regulations and he refuses to admit that there is or should be built up a body of precedents even in the application of his regulations. That is not a proper application of any body of administrative law. But it was obvious in his remarks that he was betrayed perhaps by some earlier constitutional training into a recognition of the fact that his own official policy that there are no rights attached to regulations is not correct, when he said this afternoon, discussing the matter of certain changes in the provisions for admission of Chinese, that something had been incorporated in the regulations and he said-and these are his own words-"It is now a part of the law."


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, it is part of the law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Although it is incorporated in nothing more than the regulations. If it is a part of the law, does the minister argue that there are no rights under the law except those which he cares to confer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the way he applies it. Then he goes on to say in connection with immigration that there is no question at all of justice or injustice. Did one ever hear a more inhuman interpretation of this field of immigration law and practice? That is the policy the minister follows, that there is no question of justice or injustice involved.
Then he discusses the administrative difficulties. Of course, there are administrative difficulties, and the minister is in receipt of a 

salary to see that the administrative practices are such that the immigration law will be carried out in accordance with the desires of the people of Canada. This excuse of administrative difficulty is an entirely outmoded and unfair one. Certainly there are administrative difficulties involved in every department. That is why ministers are paid, in some cases grossly overpaid.


Mrs. Shipley:: Smart Aleck!


Edmund Davie Fulton: He talks about this difficulty of the priority of cases. Certainly they have to be assigned some priorities, but are we to conclude that the minister is so lazy that he will say-


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Indolent" is a nicer word.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -that, although there are some cases that require to be assigned a degree of priority, and those are new cases about which there is no difficulty, fresh applications, in order to save himself too much administrative difficulty he is going to close the door permanently to people who have problems of family reunion to solve? That is what he is saying: "In order to save myself administrative difficulty, I am not going to consider these cases any further."


Marie Ann Shipley: That is not what he said at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is exactly what he said.


Marie Ann Shipley: That is your own interpretation.


Mr. Charlton:: It is on the record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I say, this runs counter to the whole conception of the administration of justice, which is based-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He is a lawyer and I am not, but my understanding is that there has to be in the courts some finality somewhere in every case, even where the judgment may turn out to be wrong, as some judgments do turn out to be. I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree, or otherwise there would not be courts of appeal. It seems to me that even if there was any question of injustice involved -and I think there is often a question of humanity involved-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You are not asking a question. You are giving a speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not admit that there is, but even if there were a question of justice involved, we take the original application and it is turned down. In most cases, that ends immigration cases. Nobody bothers to ask for the review or anything else. But in these cases we are saying that a most careful review, which will go to the minister, will

take place, and that will be final. It does not seem to me that that is any more denial of justice than taking a case to a trial court and from there to a court of appeal. How many decisions on appeal are you going to have when it is the same court? It seems to me that the hon. gentleman is making a mountain out of something that is not exactly a molehill but something that is a great deal less than a mountain.


Harold Edward Winch: I have seen you change your
mind with fresh evidence on the third or fourth time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What the hon. member for
Vancouver East says is, of course, perfectly true. But the thing that the minister will riot accept from us, although we advance it in the utmost seriousness, and I do not know how we are going to get the point across except, as I say, by a change of government-*


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is of course the
proper way to do it. Get out in the country and win an election.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will, don't worry, when
you have the courage to call it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why don't you try it?


John Horace Dickey: Whistling iri the dark.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If that is what you believe
why do you not call it tomorrow? Heaven knows the situation cries aloud for it. If you were not afraid of losing it you would call it tomorrow. The point at issue here is-


Mr. Hosking:: Why should there be an
election? We have been here less than three years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you have anything to say
on immigration I suggest that you say it on your own time and not by interruption.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was just talking about
the election.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point at issue here is that the review procedure is not carried on in accordance with the ordinary concepts and principles of justice because the minister's department will not tell those interested the reasons for their rejection. Iri any other appeal involving almost any other department-I am not sure about them all-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That does not apply, of
course, in the Chinese cases. We always give the reason in the Chinese cases, as the hon. gentleman knows very well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But very rarely the detailed
facts upon which that decision is based.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In these Chinese cases,
as the hon. gentleman very well knows, it is always a question of identity and we go
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to the greatest possible pains to explain why we do not believe the person is of the age claimed or why we do not believe he is the son of the person who claims to be his mother or father. The fullest details are given in these cases and always have been because there is nothing but the question of identity involved. I admit we do not do that in other cases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister then say
why he will not allow the solicitors for the applicants access to the files if there is a readiness to give the fullest information and a readiness to allow the applicant to meet the case of the department against him or to counter the grounds upon which the departmental decision is based? What kind of an appeal process is that contrasted with the appeal process-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not an appeal process at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -under the United States
immigration system? We accuse the Americans sometimes when accusations arid representations are made against the Americans for the harshness of their immigration laws, but the minister would not deny for a moment that the Americans do allow a system of appeal which puts ours into the shade. The facts are stated fully, the law considered applicable by the immigration law officer is stated and the person concerned has the right to be there and to be represented by counsel. What a long way in advance of our immigration system theirs is!
We have been urging upon the minister a simple change in the administrative policy or practice, call it what you will, of his department which would remove all these objections. That change is that where an applicant is rejected the reasons should be stated in full and the applicant should be informed and should be given an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes his sponsor iri Canada informed of the reasons so that his case can be heard in Canada and an opportunity be given to meet the objections or grounds upon which the department has based its adverse decision. That is not done.
The minister has steadfastly refused to consider giving information to that extent. He has based his refusal on a variety of grounds varying from security in a technical sense to a statement that the files and the information contained therein are confidential and can be revealed to no one. It is extraordinary, sir, how, when it suits the department or the minister to raise difficulties on that ground, it does so by saying that the information is confidential or that the question of security is involved. But when it does not suit them,
7214	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration when they find themselves in difficulty, then the confidential nature of the grounds upon which the rejection is based vanishes out the window and there is the widest publicity given to the reasons for the rejection or order for deportation, whatever it may be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Sir, this is another outrageous misrepresentation. The department always gives reasons and is obliged by law to give reasons for deportations. They should not be confused with rejections. We do give reasons for deportations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister not recall the Brent case in which the courts of this country, from the Supreme Court of Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada, held that the department had not given reasons and that they had given the person concerned no adequate opportunity to meet the case against her? Does the minister not recall the Spalding case in which the courts of British Columbia found the same thing?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have heard of both of them, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In that case there was an admission by counsel for the appellant, which was the crown in that instance, that the hearing before the special inquiry immigration officer was conducted in violation of the essentials of justice. These are the findings of the courts whom the minister professes to respect, but when we confront him with them what does he say? He says there are no rights attached to immigration cases or he says-


John Whitney Pickersgill: To immigration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -in direct contradiction of what the courts have said that they do the very things that the courts have found they do not do, namely, make full and complete disclosure of the case against the applicant or the person ordered to be deported, as the case may be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is all the difference in the world between the two.


Edmund Davie Fulton: As I say, when it suits the department to say that they will not reveal this information because it is confidential or because there is a matter of security involved then it is not revealed but when they find themselves in trouble these principles go out the window and there is the widest disclosure of the grounds in an attempt at self-justification on the part of the minister.
I refer to two cases which have come before the house. The first one I am going to refer to is the case of Paul Robeson. We are told, sir, that particularly where a man is rejected or excluded on the ground that he is a communist there must be the most complete secrecy maintained as to the grounds of the


department's decision and the surrounding circumstances. When Paul Robeson was excluded and the subject matter was raised in the house, what did the minister say? Not only did he say that Paul Robeson was excluded because he was a known communist, which may or may not be the case, but there was no secrecy there. The house and the country were informed of the opinion of the government with regard to this man's political affiliations. Not only that, but the minister went on to say with respect to Robeson, as found at page 2821 of Hansard of April 11:
. . . who was coming here to perform under what were, according to the information I have, communist auspices.
Where is the security there? Gone out the window. The widest possible publicity was given to the fact that the department has knowledge not only of his political affiliations but the political affiliations of the sponsoring organization.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The facts were known by everybody.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yet we are told in other cases when we try to find out why a person is excluded that the reasons cannot be revealed because to do so might compromise our security arrangements.


An hon. Member:: The facts were notorious.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, so it is to be in the discretion of the department whether or not the facts are notorious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If they are notorious, how can you keep them secret?


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is to be in the discretion of the department to brand one man as a communist and an organization as communist although no court has so found. The minister is going to blacken the reputation of these people by saying that the department knows them all to be communist. What kind of principle is that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought the hon. gentleman agreed with my decision in that case.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We are told in other cases that the reason why this information cannot be revealed is that it may be embarrassing to the applicant to have it made public, that this, of course, would be bad, and that we cannot even inform any other individual, even the sponsor in Canada, of the reasons for exclusion even in cases where there are not security grounds because it might embarrass the applicant. But when the minister is embarrassed and it suits him and his departmental purposes to make the information public, in an attempt to blacken the reputation of the person concerned, there is no

hesitation in saying just why they were ordered deported, as in the case of Mrs. Spalding, which was discussed here previously.
On March 14 I asked for some factual information as to whether she had been excluded; whether she had had to post a cash bond and so on; was the deportation order subsequently quashed in the supreme court; did the Department of Citizenship and Immigration then appeal; has the time for appeal to the supreme court expired; has the department yet refunded the $1,000 and so on. I did not ask for the reasons, as I might well have done. There was no suggestion in any of the questions as to the reason why the order was made, because I did not think the information would be given. The minister has told us time and time again, when we have urged him to give the information, that it cannot be given because it is confidential. But in this case where he found himself in an embarrassing position and when apparently his only defence was to smear the reputation of the lady in question, he gave every last bit of information as to the reasons why she was excluded, including the amount of money she had with her, the number of children, and an allegation with regard to her domestic relations, not one bit of which information had been asked for. The minister has played ducks and drakes with his own policy that information cannot and will not be revealed because it is confidential. Without rehearsing the details of the case, I might just say that the major grounds upon which that order was made were subsequently found to be the dark imagination of the department itself and not to be justified in fact.
What we have said is that some order must be brought out of this chaos which the department has made of its treatment of immigration applications. There is a very simple way of doing that, namely by following the ordinary principles of justice. Where the application is rejected the department should state the reasons and give the applicant and/or his sponsors in Canada an ormortunity to meet the reasons and to argue against them. It should set up a proper appeal and review procedure so that the merits of the case might be tried with a minimum of delay, with the certainly that the merits in fact were being dealt with and that the applicant was not groping around in the dark, not knowing what case it was he or she was obliged to meet.
Recognizing for the sake of argument that there is some validity in the position taken that information given by an applicant should not be made public we were prepared to go
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration along with the minister and to suggest that it be not made available to anybody without the consent of the applicant. It is a very simple thing to provide for that. The applicant gets a notice that his application is rejected. It could be done by a short addition to the letter, at the bottom of the standard form, reading somewhat to this effect: "The reasons for the rejection are the following." Then the reasons would be particularized. Then you could go on to say this: "If you wish to appeal this rejection, you have the right to do so; and if, in order to facilitate your appeal, you wish to inform your sponsor in Canada and have him instruct counsel, if he wishes so to do, would you please indicate by signing here." Then if the applicant wished to reveal the reasons, he would say so. Then this endless business of correspondence back and forth with the minister about which he has been talking and the endless reviews by individuals would be ended because the case could be argued and decided with finality. The applicant and his sponsor would know what were the reasons for the rejection and they would be able to meet that case on its merits, with appropriate counsel to assist and to protect the interests of the applicant and the sponsor.
Until some such simple procedure is adopted-whether it be with respect to Chinese immigration cases or with respect to cases of immigrants from any other part of the world-you are not going to resolve the chaos into which this matter has fallen. With all the earnestness at my command I argue that such a procedure, far from increasing the burden of administrative work, would lessen it immeasurably because you could build up a body of precedents and get the merits of the cases disposed of at once, instead of each case being decided upon a principle which rests somewhere in the mind of the minister and no one knowing from time to time what principle is applicable to what case.
The act of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that the bar association has made recommendations to this effect and others which would produce order out of this chaos. Last year, when we had the matter up for discussion, the minister sought to dismiss the bar association recommendations on the ground that they were made in one case for political purposes and in another case by a disgruntled lawyer. But it is strange to be obliged to report that the bar association enlarged this committee, had them make a further study, and had as chairman of that committee a gentleman whom I doubt whether the minister would describe as disgruntled, unqualified or even politically unsuitable.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; he is a most distinguished gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That committee came to almost identical conclusions and made recommendations which were the same as the preliminary recommendations and conclusions arrived at by the committee of the previous year and which the minister was characterizing by the language that I have described. But these recommendations are apparently to no avail because the minister refuses to change the administrative practices of his department, or even to countenance for a moment a change in them which would do nothing other than give recognition to the ordinary, simple concepts and principles of justice which should apply in his department as much as they should apply anywhere else in Canada.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. Is there any limit to the number of Chinese that can come to Canada? Before he answers that question, I should like to thank him for the hope that another young Chinaman will be coming to Fort William because if only one parent is living, it is the same as two.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the brief answer to the hon. gentleman's question is that the only limit there is is the number there are in China, of children under 21 of Canadian citizens.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Chairman, I think this has been a most unfortunate speech that the minister has made today. I am sure that it would not have been made two months ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been waiting for two months to make it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why was it that your colleagues agreed to it only today?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sure the minister could have had it before the house earlier. 1 am sure that the minister will be forced by public opinion to repudiate the statement he has made today. The hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Kamloops have advanced arguments as to why a statement of this sort should not be permitted to stand unchallenged in any free parliament anywhere. The hon. member for Nanaimo this morning referred to the treatment we are extending to people from India and to people from members of our own commonwealth. We must not lose sight of the fact that the people of China and of India are watching what we are doing in connection with the handling of these immigration problems. I for one am ashamed of the policies we have carried out in Canada,

particularly over the last 50 years, in connection with Chinese who wish to come to Canada.
I am sure the members of every political party will agree with me that, on the whole, the Chinese have been very good citizens. It should be recalled that for 25 long years we had a barrier which permitted less than a dozen Chinese people to take up residence in Canada. Then, when we were fighting for the survival of democracy we made some concessions and we allowed some Chinese to enter. For the minister to say now that he is too busy to take the time to review some of these cases that are still pending must not be allowed to go unchallenged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not, of course, what the minister said.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is the logical conclusion from what he said, that he is going to say no all along the line and not let them in.
I have a case which goes back for many years, and there has been a great deal of correspondence in connection with it. I re-jsent very much the suggestion that the minister has thrown out that these people are a nuisance. Charlie Quan has been one of my best friends for 25 years. Let me review very briefly a few of the details in connection with Charlie's life. At 13 years of age Charlie left his home to go out and earn his living. He received the magnificent sum of $4 per month in Singapore. As a result of faithful service he had his wages increased to $6 per month at the end of the first year; then, $8 at the end of the next year; then $10 and then $12. After seven years he had been able to send home to his parents something like $200. Eventually, he was able to go into debt and raise the $500 a head tax to come to Canada. He left his wife in China and his first son was born after Charlie arrived here. In due course, he went back to China and another son was born. After seven years in Canada he went back to China again and a third son was born. Then, the depression came and Charlie did not get back home again. The father never saw the third child who died when he was about 13 years of age.
During the Japanese-Chinese war the parents of two children lost their lives and the Quans adopted these two children. They had no intention of coming to Canada. As a matter of fact Charlie had sold his Canadian interests and fully intended to go back to China to spend the rest of his life. In the meantime, his elder son had become a civil engineer and he came to Canada to take his master's degree at the University of Toronto. When the change in government came in China the preference was to stay in Canada.

The department has been good enough to make it possible for the young chap to take up residence in Canada. There has been a great deal of correspondence about this unusual case.
Now that Charlie's wife is in Canada the daughter, who was married of course, is barred from this country. These two adopted children, who are still in their teens, are also barred from Canada. The minister says that this sort of case cannot be considered because there would be a great many other similar cases. I think it is unfortunate that 15 million people are trying to hold this northern portion of this continent where I am sure 30 million people could live much better than the 15 million, but of course I do not expect the minister of immigration to solve all these problems.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could just ask the hon. gentleman a question. He is not, in this case, complaining about the administration. He is complaining about the regulations, is he not? Under the present regulations these children are not admissible. If the regulations were changed, their applications would naturally be considered.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister says it is too much bother, and there has been a lot of correspondence in connection with this particular case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I think in fairness the hon. gentleman will admit that these two adopted children are not admissible under the present law; that is the law as it is now. If the hon. gentleman is asking that the law be changed, that is one thing; but surely he is not going to complain that it is poor administration on my part to obey the law.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Oh, no; I have had correspondence in connection with a great many other Chinese cases. Like other hon. members, I am sure that we are rather cautious about how critical we are of the minister because some of these cases that have been turned down by the officials are given sympathetic consideration by the minister and previous decisions are reversed. For the sake of future cases one might have to bring before the minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe the hon. gentleman means to insinuate what he is insinuating. If there is any hon. member in this house who wants to stand up and say that he believes that my judgment in any case has ever been coloured by my attitude to any member in this house, I wish he would say so and cite the case. I have done my utmost in spite of what the hon.
67509-458i
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration member for Kamloops has said,-I thought he used a rather unparliamentary word, lazy -about my indolence. I have tried to administer my department with assiduity. I think I could even say, in simpler language, that I have worked rather hard. I have had letters from all but a half a dozen of the members of this house about immigration cases. I do not think that at any time when I have been in Ottawa I have failed to answer those letters myself or that I failed to give these cases careful consideration. It has never made any difference to me to what party the hon. member belongs or what the colour of his eyes was, I have tried to deal with the facts. If any hon. gentleman wishes to make the kind of unworthy insinuation the hon. member for Mackenzie is making now, I wish he would be specific.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I want to make it clear that I have not complained about the disposal of any of the cases which I have brought to the attention of the minister. I must say that he has given sympathetic consideration to all the cases that I have brought to his attention. But I should also say there have been a number of cases which have been turned down by the department and in which, when brought to the attention of the minister, the decisions were reversed. I do not want to have the people from the constituency, on behalf of whom one might be asked to make representations in the future, placed in a position where their problems might be jeopardized by any critical remarks one might make from time to time regarding the administration of this particular department.


Mr. Blackmore:: That is just a mean insinuation.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has intimated this afternoon that there is a tremendous amount of work involved in connection with these Chinese immigration cases. The hon. member for Kamloops has pointed out quite correctly that the minister is paid a salary to do this particular work. He is given all the staff he may find necessary, and if there is any injustice measured out to one Canadian I think it is the duty of the members of this parliament to see that the necessary changes are made so that every Canadian citizen might have his case reviewed and reconsidered if he considers an injustice has been done.


John Horne Blackmore: That is correct, but we do not need insinuations.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I had not intended to take up any of the time of the house in speaking on these estimates, but I think possibly I can make my remarks in two or three minutes: instead of taking 15 or 20. I am perhaps
7218	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration fortunate in not having many cases of East Indians in my constituency, neither do I have many cases dealing with Chinese or Japanese immigrants. We have a great many immigrants coming from Europe to the rich farming section which I represent. A year ago I had the opportunity of being in Europe and I visited the homes of the relatives and friends of a great many people who have come to our country from Belgium, Holland, France and Germany. I would like to bring this to the minister's attention. I am particularly pleased with the type of immigrant he has brought to the county of Wellington in the province of Ontario. When I visited the homes of these people I learned that those who had emigrated from those countries are the best ambassadors Canada has in those countries.
In case after case the immigrants who had moved to Canada were writing letters home to their friends and relations telling them what a wonderful country Canada is. This caused me to think back to some 11 years before when I was in Europe with the army of invasion. It occurred to me that it would have been wonderful if we had had these same people in those countries at that time.
I would hope that whatever he does in his department the minister will continue to do the good job he has done in the past and will continue to see that we bring to Canada the type of people who will appreciate the opportunities presented to them here and who will not hesitate to write home to their friends and relations advising them that Canada is a great country and that they have good friends and neighbours in Canada; in brief, that it is a nice place to live in.
Every place where I visited the relations of immigrants in Europe, and I visited a great many, I found that we had a warm bond of friendship and I do not believe such a bond between two countries could be achieved in any other way.
I would like to commend the minister for the good job his officials have done in seeing to it that we bring to Canada the best kind of immigrants from the continent of Europe. In my constituency there are not many immigrants from the continent of Asia so I am unable to comment on that situation. I do find, however, that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has done a great service for Canada in the good relations it has created between the European countries and the citizens of Canada.


Mr. Holowach:: Mr. Chairman, may I take this opportunity of thanking the minister for the many courtesies he has extended and the attention he has devoted to the cases which
[Mr. Hosking.l

I have brought to his notice in the past. Some of these were extremely difficult and I want him to know that I do appreciate his efforts in this regard.
Having said that, it is quite obvious that my remarks are not intended to be a criticism of personalities nor are they intended to be what we have heard this afternoon, unfair criticism. Rather, they are directed to a much more important matter, namely a policy which will reverse the present trend where we are having very few people enter this country.
There are several matters which come under the jurisdiction of the minister and his department in which I am interested, and immigration is certainly one of them. I believe that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is one of the most important departments of government because of the fact that it deals with people who will work and produce and increase the assets of Canada.
May I remind the minister there is a limit to our growth unless we increase our population. All the available statistics point to a very sad development because they reveal that over the past few years we have had a marked decrease in the number of people who have been allowed to come to Canada. There is no doubt about the fact that the policy seems to be restrictive rather than liberal.
I know there is an argument that the increased prosperity in Europe has resulted in a reduction in the number of people who are willing to come to Canada, but I personally know of several cases in which the procrastination and delay in the department reaching a decision has caused frustration and resulted in the applicant and his family succumbing to a sense of futility and abandoning all hope of coming to Canada, and therefore they have sought entry elsewhere.
I am not advocating a wide open door policy; certainly no one in his right senses would do that. I do think, however, we should humanize our policies somewhat and show a little more tolerance. I do not hesitate to express appreciation for the immigrant because I think his record is excellent, and what Canadian does not have such ancestry? Everywhere we look we see these people, their energies and talents absorbed with our own in building a greater community and a richer country.
It has been my experience that behind the word immigrant is always a story of characteristics that we Canadians appreciate-courage, love of freedom and a very deep devotion to this country which these people have selected voluntarily as their

own. It seems to me there are perhaps many people in Europe who should be given the opportunity of coming to this country. Let me remind the minister that there are still over 414,000 refugees from captive nations in Europe under the care of United Nations refugee commission. Surely amongst those are many worthy cases that ought to be permitted to enter Canada.
May I just point out to the minister that one of the best ways for us to safeguard our freedom is to allow a generous number of people to come to this country who have not been enjoying freedom. They are the element that does not take freedom for granted.
It seems to me that as long as our country is one in which there are vast uninhabited spaces and as long as we have a productive capacity that calls for an ever-increasing per capita consumption, unless we are able to increase our population by natural means to a proper level the question of immigration will always hold our attention.
We should have a sound aggressive immigration policy especially at a prosperous time such as this. That policy must be based on selective immigration and yet it must also be human and tolerant. I think the situation is well described in an editorial which appears in the Montreal Gazette of May 29, 1956:
The fundamental fact of life for Canadians . . . is the necessity of expanding our population as quickly as possible, in order to reduce the heavy financial burden which we now pay for the privilege of remaining Canadians. The imposts borne by every Canadian to meet the handicaps imposed on us by limited consumers, small industries, overwhelming communication problems, outside defence commitments and severe climatic limitations are too obvious to need elaboration. If we are to remain a nation, rather than to become a forty-ninth state, we must have more people and as quickly as possible.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the minister before I start that I am not going to be critical of him. He and I have had differences of opinion before and I want to assure the committee that he came around to my way of thinking before we got through and so we got along all right.
I would like at this time to direct a question to the minister. Does the minister or the government have any preference as to the number of immigrants admitted into Canada of different nationalities? Would the minister answer that question before I proceed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps while I am on my feet, sir, I may be permitted to say a word about what the hon. member for Edmonton East said concerning refugee camps. I was
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration very much impressed by some of the representations made to me by the Ukrainian Canadian committee about a year ago urging that we go through the refugee camps and take a second look. I think perhaps the hon. members knows, and perhaps even wanted me to say, that we sent a mission including a distinguished member of the citizenship branch of my department who is of Ukrainian origin, and one of the officers of the immigration branch, to take a second look at all the camps. We think we are going to find quite a number of eligible people in the camps.
There are certain other liberalizations we think we can make, particularly in co-operation with the provincial governments. One difficulty we do have is that if we bring people to this country who cannot satisfy all the health requirements and they subsequently have to have treatment or welfare assistance; that is not a charge upon the federal government, in most cases it is a charge on the provincial or local authorities. We do not feel that we should create potential problems for them without their concurrence in our doing so, but we are taking the most liberal view we can.
The hon. member for Huron asked me a question which I think I could best answer by reading a few sentences from what Mr. Mackenzie King said in 1947 which is still the fundamental policy of this government.


Mr. Hodgson:: Did you write it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think you might say that it has been our policy to give the most encouragement to immigration from countries like the United Kingdom which have institutions similar to our own. That is not because we consider there is any inherent superiority in those people over other people, but because immigration is the process of tearing people up by the roots and trying to transplant them. As the hon. member who is a farmer knows, it is easier to transplant into soil which is similar to that from which you take the plant. It is for that reason that, generally speaking, our immigration promotion policy is confined to Europe and to some degree to the United States. I sometimes think that we ought to look for more immigrants from the United States, but I think the debate on another subject last evening has shown how frightfully difficult it is for a relatively small country like Canada, small in resources by comparison, to make much impact, publicity-wise, upon a country like the United States.
Our general view is that, other things being equal, it is better to get immigrants from
7220	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration countries that have our constitutional, parliamentary, democratic and free type of government; that they adapt themselves more easily and more readily.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Why it it we get so many more immigrants of one nationality than of another? Are those immigrants picked by application, or how are they picked?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Many of us might like to have it that way, but you cannot conscript immigrants. They volunteer to come and we do our best to encourage the people we want to come. The people in some countries are much more ready to come than those in other countries. I am very pleased, and here I am constrained to say, although it pains me to do so, that the hon. member for Kamloops was right and I was not entirely right last year about the assisted passage loans; I think there is no doubt that, by accepting the advice of the hon. member for Kamloops and a lot of other persons inside and outside the house, and extending these loans to cover dependents as well as the breadwinner, we have increased immigration from the United Kingdom. I just made a quick calculation when the hon. member was speaking yesterday and the increase in the first six months this year over last year is about 11,500, and of that number 7,000 are from the United Kingdom. I do not think that asssisted passage is the main factor, but I think it has been a contributing factor. I think better publicity has been another factor.
In this respect I cannot compliment the hon. gentleman. There was a lot of talk on the other side of the house in January and February of 1955 about the great unemployment crisis. We have absolute proof that that did discourage immigration, particularly from the United Kingdom. This year, while there were nearly as many people on the unemployment insurance rolls, we did not have a debate in the house. There was a more hopeful attitude here which was reflected in the figures. So far as the situation in Europe is concerned, they have had the same kind of full employment in both years.
I am quite discouraged about the decline in immigration from The Netherlands. There are varied reasons for this, the most important of course being the full employment they have there. There is no doubt that the immediate cash advantage of having your passage paid to Australia-it is free there and they do not have to pay it back-does appeal to a certain number of people. Why do we not do that? I think the answer is very simple. The passage to Australia costs a great deal, and so does the return passage. The passage to Canada costs very little. With the buoyant employment we have in this


country it is very easy for a person to earn his passage back. I would be very much afraid that if we undertook to pay passages we would find we were providing some relatively cheap holidays for a lot of people. It is a problem, but I think we ought to be realistic about it. We did try it in the 1920's and had that experience.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Immigrants are brought here when there are not jobs waiting for them when they get to Canada, nor do they have assurance they will get jobs, but I have received representations on behalf of certain people who had jobs promised to them here and yet they had difficulty getting in. As long as a person has complied with the regulations he should not have too much trouble when he is assured of a job before he leaves home, much more so than one who comes here with the idea that he can get a job. I think the minister should take that into consideration when he gets applications from people who have relatives here or who know people who can offer them jobs before they leave home. Such people are not going to become a charge on the state and they should be given preference.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We do our best, but sometimes there are personal factors that make a case very difficult. In this context I may say that the problem of security screening is a most difficult one. Except for the hon. member for Nanaimo I do not think there are many who think it can be dispensed with. It does create great difficulty. I do not say it is responsible for all delays, and I certainly do not blame anyone for them. This is the kind of operation that can be carried on only by trained people or it would be a travesty. It is a real problem.


Mr. Cresiohl:: Mr. Chairman, from what we have heard in this debate on immigration and in other debates on immigration I think most hon. members will agree that there are few departments of government that command the direct human touch more than immigration. We in Canada have always considered family life and close family ties as being one of our great assets. Therefore I cannot accept the statements that we have heard this afternoon that any action by our minister would at any time interfere with the cementing of family ties. Such a statement is most unreasonable and there is no justification for it in the face of the experience I myself have had.
As hon. members know, I also represent a constituency in which there are countless families whose homes have been destroyed and whose members have been forcibly

separated, and these people have been prevented from cementing their ties with their families. In every case that came to my attention affecting the reunion of a family, although the minister has not always been able to yield to the human request, he has wherever possible and on every occasion made the cementing of human ties and the bringing together of families who are separated a basic principle of life in Canada, and certainly he has granted those requests on every possible and conceivable occasion.
It is therefore very difficult for anyone sitting on this side of the house to hear members of the opposition take isolated individual cases, notwithstanding the minister's clear-cut explanation that where the department is satisfied and convinced that the facts are as represented, the department would grant those applications. We have a minister and we have departmental officials who have their jobs to do. If they were to make mistakes and admit people into this country who should not be admitted, the opposition would be the first to criticize them.
I am satisfied that, especially where the question of family ties are concerned the minister and his officials in every part of the world will most certainly yield to the requests that families be brought together again. I can only say that I have considered the minister's actions and found them to meet the situation. He tempers the cold wording of the law with a very warm, human and almost paternal consideration, and in doing so he certainly is administering the law not only in conformity with its letter but certainly with the spirit of our Canadian way of life.
While I am on my feet may I draw to the minister's attention the fact that because of our expanding economy and because of our industrial development we can look back now for about ten years and find that the more than one million immigrants who have entered Canada since the war have certainly been helpful in our expanding economy. We are still growing; there is still room for improvement, and certainly we shall require additional manpower.
In that respect I should like to draw to the minister's attention the fact that there is perhaps another opportunity now, because I think most of our sources of immigration are almost dried up, in the Europeans who have immigrated to North Africa and who because of developments in the past two or three years, are now almost compelled to flee from North Africa. Perhaps here is a fine opportunity for us to be alerted to the fact that there are thousands of highly [DOT]desirable immigrants who may now be willing
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to come to Canada. I suggest to the minister that we alert our officials in Paris and Rome and in other European centres to that fact and to encourage as much as possible the immigration of such people from North Africa. They are mostly affluent and intelligent people, Europeans who had to flee Europe during the war holocaust and who are now also unfortunately fleeing North Africa because of the very dangerous situation there. I think from that source we can now obtain a number of fine immigrants who can continue to assist the economy of Canada in the same way as the more than one million we have brought to this country since the war.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was interested in one comment the minister made regarding the Australian policy, in which he said that Australia pays the passage and does not require repayment. May I ask him whether that applies to all immigrants or merely to those from the United Kingdom? In the light of the figures I have seen, which I put on the record yesterday, which indicate that in 1955 Australia received 54,000 persons from Europe under the resettlement scheme-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that originally was only for immigrants from the United Kingdom, but the Australian policy has been expanded far beyond that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: While fully appreciative of the dangers of even a loan scheme, let alone an outright payment of passage scheme, I would urge that the department have another look at this question and possibly have a modified scheme between an outright payment and a loan-perhaps a long-term loan would be the answer-because the figures seem to indicate that Australia is benefiting from the availability of refugees-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not just regular; it is European immigrants generally.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, from European immigration as a whole, more than Canada is. In view of the real need for population, about which there is at least no division of opinion between us, perhaps, one could categorize it as a highly competitive business of encouraging immigrants to come here. If Australia is succeeding to a greater proportionate extent than we are should we not, then, have a fresh look at our own competitive position and see what we can do to improve it visa-vis Australia; not only to beat out Australia -that would be a foolish thing to rest it o" exclusively-but to look at it from the viewpoint of our own proper self interest and the responsibility that we have to those who require new homes?
7222	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think we really want to engage in competition with Australia, and I do not think the hon. member really suggests that. I think what we ought to try to do is increase the total numbers. The Australians need immigrants very badly. In some ways they need them worse than we do because of their isolated position in the world, and it has never been part of our policy to compete actively with them.
When we come to the supplementary estimates it will be found that there are several ways in which we are attempting to do something to encourage people. I might say in passing that it is perhaps not top well known, though we try to make it known in Europe, that any immigrant who borrows money to come to Canada and undertakes to go on a farm has his loan cancelled at the end of a year if he stays for a year on a farm. We make that special inducement in the case of farm labourers. We also now extend the loans beyond the two-year period in cases of need, now that we have taken dependants.
Perhaps in some ways the most useful thing of all that we have done is to establish the new family assistance program. There was a distinct feeling on the part of many immigrants that it was rather unfair that, in the year when they first came here, and perhaps needed money more than they would ever need it again, they were ineligible for family allowances. The payment is the same as the minimum amount of family allowances. It has been very well received. The payments are now being made, since July 1, I think, under the principle on which we operate, that once an estimate is brought into the house where the government has a reasonable majority we can sometimes anticipate approval. I hope no exception will be taken to that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not in the present circumstances.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to add a word or two to what has already been said about the problems of immigration. First of all, so far as any problems I have taken to the minister are concerned, he has looked after them personally and I wish to thank him for that.
I want to say a word or two about what the hon. member for Cartier had to say about reuniting families who have been separated through difficulties of war or other causes, and his view that where it is at all possible to reunite them in Canada that should be done. I think that should1 meet with the approval of the minister and Canadians generally. In that connection I should also like to refer to the requests of Chinese for the admission to Canada of their families. I have a good many friends among the Chinese 

people in the city of London. We find that they are very law-abiding and that very seldom, if ever, are they involved in infringements of the law. They have never been known to be on relief. Most of them are self-employed and engaged in business. Consequently I hope that a humane approach will be the policy of the department with regard to their interest in bringing members of their families to Canada.
There is another point I might mention along that line. Many Chinese families probably will never have the opportunity to be reunited with their relatives in Canada because of the communists taking over the mainland of China; therefore that reduces the possible immigrants to a very small number. The hon. member for Kamloops mentioned the recommendations of the Canadian Bar Association. I think they should be very seriously considered, because these men have made a very thorough and complete study of the problems.
There is another matter I hear discussed in my part of the country. People wonder why it is that so many immigrants are attracted to Australia and New Zealand as compared to Canada. I am also wondering what efforts are made to attract citizens of the United States to become Canadians. There is no doubt that many of them are becoming interested in our great natural resources. That is quite evident. But when they become interested I should like to see them come to Canada and become Canadian citizens, and not remain in the United States and reap the benefit of our resources. I think a judicious plan of advertising to attract the right type of people might be advantageous as far as we are concerned.
Then there is another question that is always in people's minds. It has been mentioned a good many times to me and I am going to give two cases that were brought to my attention. One was the case of a young English chap and his wife who decided to leave the British Isles and were going to shop around before they decided whether to go to Australia, New Zealand or Canada. Their first call was at Canada House. The officials there were interested, but they said that there were a great number of applications, that the bookings on the various steamship lines were full, and that possibly they would have to wait a couple of years before they could come to Canada. They were very disappointed.
The minister knows as well as I do that when you come out of the door of Canada House on Cockspur street you look across the street and see the offices of the Canadian Pacific Railway. They decided to go over

to the Canadian Pacific and see what they had to say. They told them that they wanted to come to Canada but that they understood that space was at a premium and difficult to obtain. They wanted to know what they could expect. The officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway said, "Would two weeks be soon enough?" Yet they were told across the street in our offices in Canada House that they could not expect to get passage within a couple of years.
Then there is the case of another chap

and I know these people-who went there and told the commissionaire on duty at the door that he was interested in coming to Canada. As a matter of fact, on his first trip he did not even get past the commissionaire.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman quite sure he is right about his facts? I do not think the immigration office is in Canada House at all.


Harry Oliver White: He went to Canada House and that is what he was told. When he came out the door he went right across the street to the Canadian Pacific Railway office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Blame the Secretary of State for External Affairs!


Harry Oliver White: I can give the minister the names of these immigrants if I so choose. If they had not gone across the street to the Canadian Pacific Railway the chances are that they would have gone to Australia or New Zealand. We do not know what goes on in our offices abroad, and there is a lot of doubt in people's minds as to what does go on. When these two cases were brought to my attention I began to wonder myself. I think it is time that we took a look at the situation. I do not think the people of Ontario are too happy about the management of the department or the policy of the government as far as immigration is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may just say a word or two, I gave some misinformation a moment ago to the hon. member for Kamloops. I have looked up the matter and I find that the part of the loan to farm labourers that is cancelled is inland transportation in Canada, not sea passage.
(Translation):


Mr. Villeneuve:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a question to the minister. As the minister has seen for himself the deplorable condition and narrowness of the road in the Indian reservation at Pointe-Bleue during his recent visit to this place, could he tell us what steps his department intends to take to remedy this situation?
Supply

Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, 1 would rather attempt to answer the hon. member's question on the estimates regarding Indian affairs.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-
66.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $10,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $5,763,851.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the minister give us a report that will be as complete as possible with respect to the case that has been under way in Montreal involving irregularities, mainly in the issue of visas for entrance to Canada from Italy? According to my recollection the case has been under investigation and there have been some prosecutions in the courts for a period of two years now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The last information I had, and I am pretty sure it is accurate, was that the crown had completed its case but that the defence had asked for an adjournment and got it from the court. The case is actually being tried at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I understand there are quite a number of persons involved. Are all defendants being tried simultaneously?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think they are all being tried simultaneously. My impression is that the advice we had from counsel was that the one case, or whatever cases are now in process, had to be completed before they could begin the others.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could the minister give us a report as to the number of civilians involved? I do not mean immigrants, but the number of Canadian civilians involved. Personally I am inclined to believe that more publicity should be given to this matter by the department than has been given, because here was a case of a type of racketeering on the part of unscrupulous Canadians that in my opinion cannot be too strongly condemned. I do not suppose there were very many of them, but they took advantage of-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would not feel that while the trial is going on we ought not to have any publicity.


Mr. Sinclair:: You are prejudging the
matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As far as the general principle is concerned, I completely agree with the hon. gentleman.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suppose the sub judice rule is on the minister's side this time.


James Sinclair: The accused is charged with racketeering. He has not been convicted yet.
7224	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Edmund Davie Fulton: No one has been named. However, I shall leave that item.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to ask an explanation of the minister. In my constituency there was a German immigrant who worked in the C.P.R. communications. He tried to rob the cook in the work car one night, and made an unsuccessful attempt to cut his throat. In fact he got the money, was later arrested by the R.C.M.P. and went before the court in Trail. The judge was of the opinion that Canada did not want that type of citizen- so, instead of sentencing him to several years imprisonment, as he could have done, he sentenced him to six months and ordered him deported. When he had served his sentence he walked out of the jail a free man and disappeared somewhere into Alberta. If it had not been for committing another crime of violence he possibly would not have been picked up. Where was the slip-up on the part of the minister's department in not seeing to it that the judge's order for deportation was obeyed?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would really have to investigate the details of the case. From what the hon. gentleman said, I am not quite sure who tried to cut who's throat, whether it was the cook who tried to cut the throat of the immigrant or-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The immigrant tried to cut the cook's throat but made a bad job of it. Anyway, he took his money.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that if immigrants go around trying to cut the throats of cooks, except for one or two cooks I have known in my time I would think that action was not justified and that certainly such immigrants are not the type of people we want to keep in the country. I will look into the case if the hon. gentleman will give me the name.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Where was the slip-up?


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-
67.	Field and inspectional service, abroad, $1,800,831.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister about the liaison between the dominion and the provinces in connection with the attraction of immigration from abroad. I have here in my hand two articles. One is from the Globe and Mail of May 12, 1956. It is headed "54 Per Cent of Immigrants Ontario-Bound". The article gives statistics which justify the headline and indicates that of that number the great majority remain in Ontario. I have another article from the


Globe and Mail of April 24, 1956, which reproduces an editorial from the Vancouver Sun entitled "Go After Immigrants". I shall read some extracts from it:
British Columbia needs its own official immigration policy.
Labour minister Lyle Wicks, back from an Ottawa conference on immigration, said he was troubled because B.C. faces "a critical labour shortage this year".
He skirted around the obvious solution without touching it.
Then the article goes on to say this:
Then he said-
That is Mr. Wicks.
*-B.C. wants its share to help with "the essential program we have on the way".
"Unfortunately," he added, "most of our new citizens seem to stay in the east."
Then the editorial continues:
This is true. There are job opportunities in the east. There are also job opportunities in bustling: B.C.
But the east is nearer to Europe. After reaching: Ontario the immigrant may be baffled by the 2,000 miles of journey between him and British Columbia.
Another reason why Ontario gets the big bulk. of immigrants is that Ontario goes after them. It has organized its own immigration. Alberta did the same on a smaller scale.
Then it continues, and this is reprinted from the Vancouver Sun, as I said earlier:
Long ago the Sun urged the B.C. coalition government to do something similar.
The implication of the editorial, of course, is that the British Columbia government has-not taken the necessary steps. What I want to ask is this. We know that Ontario maintains-I believe I am correct in saying this

an immigration office in its provincial offices in London, in Ontario House. From personal knowledge I could not say whether or not British Columbia does the same thing at British Columbia House. While I am not trying to criticize the minister in the dominion government if any province is not doing what it should or could do in order to encourage immigrants to settle in that province, still there is a real problem, I know, with regard to the geographical distribution of immigrants when they come to Canada.
While I am sure the minister will say- and I would agree with him-that we cannot regiment them, that this is a free country and that we cannot compel them, except to a very limited extent by assisted loan passages and so on, to remain in a certain area or indefinitely in a certain type of work and that they will go where the attraction is the greatest, I feel that, whether it be a provincial responsibility or in part a dominion responsibility, an effort should be made

to acquaint immigrants with the opportunities that would confront them in all parts of Canada.
Certainly the opportunities in British Columbia are second to none. I would say they are the greatest anywhere. What degree of co-operation exists between this department and such provincial agencies as there are overseas, and what effort is made by the dominion government to do that which I have suggested, namely to make it as easy for immigrants to get to British Columbia as to get to Ontario or other parts of eastern Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. gentleman has suggested, Mr. Chairman, this is a real problem. I have the impression, however, that the attractiveness of British Columbia, both from the point of view of wages and climate-


James Sinclair: And the class of people you meet out there also.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And general articulateness is such that they have fairly well overcome any geographical handicap they might suffer. Every time I go to the prairies I find that the great complaint is that when we do manage to get some immigrants to go to the prairies, once the first cold day comes along they are on the train on their way to British Columbia. In spite of the editorial in the Vancouver Sun, which I had already read, I do not think British Columbia has come off badly at all in the post-war immigration.
There is no doubt that there are a great many areas besides Ontario and British Columbia to which, perhaps because economic opportunities have not been so insistent, it has been more difficult to interest immigrants in going. We do, of course, make certain provision for inland transportation for certain kinds of immigrants as far as Winnipeg, in order to try to equalize the flow. But as far as our offices here know about them, we do try to indicate the opportunities in all the provinces and to do it quite fairly.
As far as co-operation abroad is concerned, we are trying to keep the closest possible contact with every provincial government that has any representatives abroad. To this conference that Mr. Wicks was at, and which was referred to in the editorial, we invited representatives of all the provincial governments, and we have done everything we could do to encourage them to help us in every way possible with this problem. Immigration is, of course, a matter of concurrent jurisdiction, under the constitution. I had a meeting some months ago with the minister responsible in Toronto. We have always had the most cordial co-operation 67509-4594
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration there. Perhaps the hon. member for Middlesex East would note that statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not going to ask the
minister to pass any judgment as between the efforts being made by the provinces, because I imagine he is in enough trouble without getting into trouble of that kind as well. But it is striking when one realizes that 54 per cent of the immigrants go to Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would think that 54 per cent of them stay in Ontario.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But we estimate-this is just a guess and nothing more, though we shall know more after we get the census figures for this year-that at least 20 per cent more immigrants find their way eventually to British Columbia than go there in the first place.


James Sinclair: They are intelligent immigrants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. member knows -and that is reflected even in the membership in this house-there is an enormous immigration into British Columbia from other parts of Canada. Indeed, I am the only member of my own family who does not live in British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to make any comment on whether or not he would be a desirable immigrant into British Columbia, but I am sure the minister is welcome any time he cares to come out and settle there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might mention that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam invited me to go there to run against him. I did not accept his invitation, but I reciprocated it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Naturally, coming from British Columbia as I do, I am delighted to hear that people from other parts of Canada want to come there. However, I do not see why our immigration should be at the expense of any other part of the country. I should like to be sure that proper efforts are made so that immigrants will be directed initially to those parts of Canada where employment opportunities exist. I hope that will be done.
There is one other related problem upon which I should like a report from the minister, and that concerns the shortage of farm labour in British Columbia. I find that during the course of one of the minister's speeches, oddly enough in the course of a speech delivered in Edmonton in November, 1955, on the future of the Canadian Indians, the minister said:
As minister of immigration, I know we face a long-term shortage of farm labour in Canada,
7226	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration which we have been trying to meet through immigration, but which is becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy with newcomers from abroad.
I should like him to say a word on that. I took it up with him by correspondence recently in connection with the situation in the farming area of my constituency. I should like to know specifically what is being done to meet the problem through overseas recruitment. Perhaps the minister would say a word also regarding the assistance which is paid in connection with the long rail journey in Canada itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid, sir, that this is an economic question. We have tried one source after another of potential immigrants for farm labour, but as hon. members who are farmers know, the competition for labour in this country in recent years has been very acute. As we do not impose any restrictions upon the immigrants, our experience has been that they tend to leave the farms and go into other employment. We do, of course, provide this rail assistance as far as Winnipeg in the hope of distributing them more evenly throughout the country. The debt is cancelled if they stay on the farm for a year, but it has not proved to be much of an inducement. It is, I am afraid, a really appallingly difficult problem.
I do think there may be some possibility-[DOT] we tried this year but we started a little too late, and we are working on it-of encouraging some of the German farmers who have crossed from East Germany into West Germany to come to Canada. Since all the land is taken up in West Germany they cannot go into agriculture there and we are encouraging them to come to Canada for a year or two as farm labourers with the view eventually to becoming farmers. They were mostly people who were substantial at home and of course would not contemplate a career as farm labourers. This may help to alleviate the situation for a while.
I am very hopeful, and here I am putting in a plug for another branch of the department, that by the training courses which we have started on the prairies for Indians and which I hope to see extended across the country, we can encourage an increasing number of young Indians to be interested in farm labour with a view eventually to some of them becoming farmers. This wo uiu pe a transitional stage from the more primitive life they live to life in our more urban society.
The farm labour problem is a difficult one, and I do not think we are going to find any solution to it through immigration, though
IMr, Fulton.]
we will work as hard as we can to get as many as we can to meet the demand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-
68.	To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for immigrants, including care en route and while awaiting employment, $450,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister say a word as to whether it is here we should look for some increase as a result of the expansion of the assisted loan passage scheme?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was wondering whether, before we proceed to item 69 which is the beginning of Indian Affairs, we could take items 610, 611 and 612 of the supplementaries which relate to the immigration branch. It is item 612 to which the hon. member for Kamloops refers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then the minister will make his statement on the supplementaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-
612. To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for immigrants-further amount required in order to provide for transportation and other assistance to immigrants and settlers from April 1, 1856, $2,255,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: There is a supplementary item here of a very substantial amount, $2,255,000, which is to provide additional funds for assisted loan passages, to provide for family assistance and also to provide any additional funds that may be required for assistance during the first year that immigrants and settlers are in Canada. I should like to draw attention to the word "settlers" in this item, because I think it might be of some interest to hon. members to know that this year it was discovered there were a certain number of Canadian citizens, particularly in the United Kingdom, applying to come to Canada. It had never occurred to them that they were Canadian citizens until they were asked where they were born and it turned out that they were born in Canada. Their families had either gone back to the United Kingdom during the depression or, in a few rather sad cases, had been deported. These people, being Canadian citizens, were not immigrants under the law and we could not do anything to help them.
It is true that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, has a fund to help distressed Canadians, but they were not distressed. They just wanted to come to settle in Canada. The whole situation seemed utterly absurd and I took the risk, after speaking to one or two hon. gentlemen in the opposition, of authorizing an assisted passage loan for one or two of those people. No

money has been paid or was paid until this item appeared, but I assumed everyone in parliament would agree that they ought to be included.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What expenditures have been made from this fund to date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is just a supplementary item to 68 in the regular estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is item 68 in sufficiently general terms to apply?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the item in the supple-mentaries reads:
To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for immigrants-further amount required in order to provide for transportation and other assistance to immigrants and settlers from April 1, 1956.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I was asking is, what amount has been spent so far as a result of broadening the terms of assistance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be difficult to segregate as between the two items, but there has been a great expansion in the expenditures. I have not the figures, and I do not think there are any figures available since April 1 that would be sufficiently valid to be worth giving to the committee at this stage. I do know the expenditures are rising.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have had four months since April 1, and I was wondering if a comparison with what we spent on this-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall try to answer that question on my departmental administration item. This is something I would not have here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I think first of all I should ask whether it is the wish of the committee to take citizenship or citizenship registration or Indian affairs next? It does not matter to me.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If I might volunteer an opinion it would be considerably easier for the table if we took them as nearly as possible consecutively.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We shall proceed with Indian affairs, then.
Indian affairs branch-
69.	Administration, $484,147.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, I have a matter I would like to bring to the minister's attention. I have had some correspondence with his departmental officials concerning the matter of the burial expenses of non-Indian indigents on reservations. In this case there is a funeral parlour on the reservation. On
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration previous occasions these costs have been met by the council through some fund or other. There have not been too many of these occurrences, but there are two cases existing at this time. The undertaker cannot get the money for the burial expenses.
As I have said, the expenses have been paid on two or three previous occasions, but in the present instance payment has been refused on the ground that there is no means by which payment can be made from the band funds. It seems to me that this is a foolish attitude to take, because after all what do you expect the band council or the undertaker or anyone else to do with a dead body?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am baffled.


John Alpheus Charlton: These people have to be buried and someone has to take the responsibility- Just because these people happen to be non-Indians living on reservations-


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a non-Indian?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Chairman, I must rise on a point of order. I did not understand the hon. gentleman was referring to a nonIndian. I really do not think that on my estimates I should be expected to answer questions concerning the burial of non-Indians who happen to be living on Indian reservations. It seems to me that is completely out of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Well, the Indians would not think so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A body of that sort would surely be a provincial matter, sir.


John Alpheus Charlton: Strictly speaking it might be out of order but I would suggest, sir, that if the minister continues to hold his present attitude he will some day be very embarrassed, because someone has to pay these expenses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We all have to die sometime.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is perfectly true, and there are worse places to live and die than on an Indian reservation; I will say that much. If it so happens that an a non-Indian marries an Indian girl and lives on a reservation and experiences tough luck during his lifetime and there is no way for his burial expenses to be met at the time of his death, what can be done? In this case because the undertaker was soft-hearted he went ahead and provided the man with a coffin and gave him a decent burial, and now there is no way in which he can be paid. I think this is wrong, whether the person involved is an. Indian or a non-Indian.
7228	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the hon. member should bring the matter to the attention of the provincial department of welfare. This matter certainly has nothing to do with the Indian affairs branch or any other branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr. Weir:: The hon. member knows that.


John Alpheus Charlton: No, he does not know it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have raised a serious point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We simply cannot have corpses lying around on a reservation and the minister disclaiming responsibility.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I wish to speak concerning the point of order that was raised by the minister. As I understand it the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand is indicating to the committee events that have taken place on Indian reserves. The minister says that he and his administration are not responsible for the consequences of these particular actions and that of course is as far as the minister can be compelled to answer; but I do not think the hon. member is out of order in drawing to the attention of the committee at this time deaths or other occurrences which take place on Indian reserves when we are discussing the administration of the Indian affairs branch.
I can only repeat that the minister has stated he has no responsibility, and he cannot be compelled to answer further than that. However, I cannot at the moment rule out of order a discussion of the situation that has arisen and which I take it the hon. member is indicating in his opinion is a matter for which the department should accept some responsibility.


John Alpheus Charlton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly feel this does not fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial administration, on the reservation at Brantford. The federal department maintains justice on reservations and the provincial department has absolutely nothing to do with the administration of Indian reservations.
I think it is time that something was done about non-Indian indigents living on Indian reservations. If the department is not prepared to provide these people with a decent burial if they happen to die on a reservation, I am wondering if the department considers that these people are supposed to crawl off the reservation before they die.
I fail to understand why payment should not be made in this case, because it has been made before. The undertaker gave this service in good faith and had no idea that the


expenses would not be paid. When he presented a bill for two funerals he was advised that the bills would not be paid. If the undertaker had been advised that his expenses would not be met he could then have chosen to perform the burials and taken his chances on collecting his expenses, but he was not so advised.
I think the minister should stretch a point and undertake to see that the present bill is settled, then advise the undertaker that such expenses would not be met in the future. Because of the correspondence he has had with the departmental officials in this regard the undertaker is aware of the department's attitude concerning payment and will be able to govern himself accordingly in the future. I do not know what the minister is going to do if some day he receives a phone call and is advised that a non-Indian indigent had died on a reservation and the people there are wondering what to do with the corpse. If this occurs he will have another problem on his hands.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few minutes in which to draw the attention of the minister to what I consider unnecessary delay and red tape in settling Indian affairs; particularly estates, which sometimes run on for years, and rental leases and so on.
The worst case of delay in my riding concerns an irrigation canal which was built through the Indian reserve in 1919. I have in my hand the file which I received a month ago containing correspondence between the Indian affairs branch and the provincial and federal governments concerning the case I have in mind. I intend to quote briefly from these letters in order to give the whole picture of this scheme that was commenced 37 years ago. In this instance the Indians were to benefit as a result of the sale of certain land, but to this day they have not received a penny.
I might point out that under the project I am discussing the water conveyed through the ditch on Indian land has built up flourishing communities such as Oliver and Osoyoos, which are located in that area. The ditch was put in to provide water under an irrigation scheme for veterans after the first war, and millions of dollars have been added to our national wealth through the use of this water and the development of this land.
As I said, I intend to quote briefly from these letters in order to sketch in the background for the minister, because he may not be aware of it. I have in my hand a letter dated June 19, 1919, addressed to Hon. Arthur Meighen, minister of the interior at Ottawa, part of which reads as follows:

I understand that the inspector of agencies at Vernon is to make a report at once, and thereafter, I presume, you will be able to give us your decision without delay.
This is with reference to the transfer of Indian lands to the provincial government. I continue:
We have made you an offer of $10,000 for the tract in question, but I suppose, if the locusts are as bad as your dominion entomologist reports, that this would be a high figure.
I go on to another letter in that year addressed to Mr. Pattullo by Mr. Meighen which refers to the letter of June 19, and which he states has not been replied to. It reads in part:
I might say that the deputy superintendent general of Indian affairs informs me that he, during last month, asked our inspector to make an immediate report as to the advisability of making portions of the Indian reserve south of Okanagan lake available for returned soldiers and he hopes to have a reply very shortly.
Then the next one is dated July 23, 1919 from the minister of mines.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unless the hon. gentleman wants to put this on the record, may I say that I have seen this correspondence and I agree that the matter ought to be straightened out. I agree thoroughly with the hon. gentleman and we are trying to do it.


Owen Lewis Jones: The minister has indicated that he is aware of it. It is a disgraceful way to treat Indians, to make them wait 37 years for money which was promised them in 1919. Nothing has been done, and the latest letter of January 5 of this year, addressed to the deputy minister of lands and forests at Victoria by the Indian commissioner for British Columbia reads:
I wish to acknowledge with thanks your letter of December 22, and copies of an exchange of correspondence with Chief Manuel Louie. I have requested our superintendent at Vernon to assure Mr. Louie that our negotiations with you are proceeding satisfactorily and that there is no need for further correspondence on his part.
It started 37 years ago. Here is another letter addressed to the assistant to the deputy minister of lands and forests by the Indian commissioner for British Columbia under date of February 29, 1956:
I am wondering if any progress has been made with regard to the above since your letter of January 31.
This matter has, as you know, been outstanding for many years and I am afraid that if a settlement is not effected at an early date the Indians concerned may change their minds, leaving the problem still with us.
The whole file is of the same nature. Personally I feel that the department has been absolutely incompetent in dealing with the Indians. The original price was $10,000, and then the land area was cut down. The
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Indians now demand $7,500. Although the land has become very valuable the provincial government offered only $5 per acre with 25 cents severance allowance. I think it is time these Indians were given the full protection of the department in order that they may collect what I consider to be a fair and just demand, that is roughly $7,500. Actually that is only interest on the original $10,000 which was offered to them 37 years ago. I hope the minister without any delay will see that some action, legal or otherwise, is taken to obtain this money for the Indians. I let it rest at that because the more I read the more disgusted I become with the conduct of the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since this matter has been drawn to my attention I have been pressing to have it settled. While the hon. member was speaking I received a note to the effect that the commissioner of Indian affairs has just been advised that a meeting has been called for August 14 with the minister of agriculture in Victoria to bring this matter to a conclusion. I hope sincerely it is brought to a conclusion. I do not know whether it is possible for us to take legal action in the matter, as I am not a lawyer and therefore would not be able to say, but certainly I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will push hard to get this thing settled both quickly and satisfactorily.


Owen Lewis Jones: I want to point out that I am not blaming the present government in Victoria, as I do not think it is their fault. This matter has recently been drawn to their attention. I do blame this government for being slack.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Roberval on the immigration item.
(Translation):
Following my visit to the Pointe-Bleue reservation, last June, I instructed the officials of the Indian affairs branch to complete their survey on the school situation and the condition of the road as quickly as possible.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that a report will shortly be submitted.


Mr. Byrne:: Thank you very much.
(Text):


Mr. Small:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just spoken referred to a matter in connection with Indians which has remained unsettled for 37 years. The matter I have in mind is not that old, although it has been before the department for the last two years. There have been conflicting statements about the present position.
7230	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The hon. member for Yorkton has had a question on the order paper in regard to the Caughnawaga Indians, in which he asks for information from the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. At one time we had a statement from the minister that everything was all right, that everything was in order; on the other hand we had a statement from the reserve stating that the Indians are not satisfied. Then we had a statement by the chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority that everything was fine, that they were paying for the land owned by the Indians and they were happy about it. Then about a week or so ago we saw a band of Indians in full ceremonial dress up here to interview the minister and everything is supposed to be all right.
I do not know whether it has been done deliberately, but this information has not been brought down although the notice has been on the order paper for three months. There is still no satisfactory statement about it, and I wonder if the minister could tell us what the situation is in regard to the land taken from the Caughnawaga Indians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to give a summary of the matter. When it was determined that the route of the St. Lawrence seaway would be such that it would be necessary to take some land from the Caughnawaga reserve, the normal procedure in ordinary circumstances would have been to apply to the band council of the reserve and attempt to get an understanding about the surrender of the land. That is what we would do in Ontario or any province west of Ontario.
Under the law as it was decided by the privy council, if there is to be a surrender of Indian lands in the province of Quebec, or in certain other provinces east of Quebec, the residual right of the province comes into play. Therefore it was impossible to proceed in the way in which we proceeded on the Blood Indian reserve, when land was required a few months ago for a canal across that reserve. It was impossible to proceed in that way; therefore it was necessary for this parliament to give the St. Lawrence seaway authority power under its act to expropriate.
Such expropriation would, of course, extinguish all rights, the right of the federal crown as trustee for the Indians, the right of individual Indians, and whatever residual right the province may have. At the time this was done a meeting was held with the then council of the band of the Caughnawaga Indians. It was explained to them what would be required, and a committee was set


up by that council to discuss with the representatives of my department all the problems that would arise in providing individual compensation to individual holders.
In addition to that, of course, it was my view and it is still my view that, over and above compensating individual Indians for their individual holdings, there should be some compensation to the whole band for having this canal in front of the reserve. In other words, an Indian reserve cannot be treated like other property; there is a communal interest as well as series of individual interests. The way this was carried out was that the St. Lawrence seaway authority made an over-all offer to me in my capacity as superintendent general of Indian affairs and representative of the crown in this context, and I said I could not accept any offer finally until I had first reached an understanding with the individual holders, because I felt that the St. Lawrence seaway authority must pay the full cost of the compensation and that we must not have to come back to this parliament for a vote to provide for a residual amount. Therefore it was impossible for me to make a final settlement with the seaway until settlements had been made with the Indians individually and collectively.
We have set about making these individual settlements and a considerable number of them have been made. In the middle of that process, some weeks ago, an election was held. Most of the councillors were defeated, and a new council was elected. The new council came here accompanied by legal advisors and had an interview with me. If I remember rightly, they were elected on July 4, and they had an interview with me some little time after that. At that interview they made a number of representations. The first was, of course, that the reserve was inviolable and that it was not competent for this parliament or for anybody else to take any part of it. I said that was a point on which I just could not agree with them; that there had been no challenge to the validity of the legislation passed by this parliament; that I could not admit that the reserve was inviolable; and that if they felt as a council that they wanted to challenge this legislation they would have to challenge it in the courts.
I suggested to them that I did not think we could stop history and that I was quite sure the seaway was going to be built. I also suggested very strongly that I believed very firmly that when this canal is completed and all the work is done the reserve will be in a much better state than it is at the present time. I have repeatedly given assurances in the house, and I repeat them now with the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
full authority of all my colleagues, that if after the negotiations are completed or fail to be completed with individual holders there is any individual who does not feel that the offer he has been given is adequate, the case will be referred to the exchequer court-I do not think it could be taken in the ordinary course to the exchequer court but it will be referred to it-and the value determined in that way. These negotiations are still proceeding, and the last report I had was that settlements were still being made.
I have every reason for believing-in fact, I believe very strongly-that these are thoroughly adequate settlements, and I would not agree to them if they were not. I also feel that it is very important to get certain advantages for the band as a whole. I am carrying on discussions with the St. Lawrence seaway authority, which are not completed, in that regard. One of the things they are doing that is going to add very considerably to the value of the reserve is that there are a number of swamps virtually in the village, and these swamps are being filled in at no cost to the Indians and made useful land for building purposes. The shore, in many ways, is going to be improved. There is going to be an area where the Indians will have access to the river, where there will be a beach and some other amenities.
I admit that people, whether they are Indians or not, do not like to be disturbed. They do not like to have their homes taken and have these changes made. That is true not only of the Indians of Caughnawaga; that has been the experience of the Ontario government, I believe, in places nearer than that. But I think all of us realize that some of these things have to be done. The important thing is that there should be full and complete compensation given to the Indians for everything that is done to their detriment.
The seaway authority is making provision for water intakes and sewer outlets from the canal. There is no proper water or sewage system in the village at the present time, and I certainly am very hopeful that I can persuade the council of the band that it would be desirable to have that kind of improvement. Of course it is not going to be forced upon them.
On one point I believe it is not possible to meet them at all, and that is on the doctrine of inviolability.
In any case most of the land has already been taken, so the only thing that could result, if they should challenge the legislation at this late date and be successful, would be to get damages or have the seaway diverted to another place. I do not think
any of us would believe that is very reasonable, and I hope that as time goes on the Indians themselves will feel that this is not a reasonable attitude and that it is not constitutionally correct, as I do not think it is.
I do not know whether I have answered all the hon. gentleman's questions, but if there are any more I should be glad to try.


Robert Hardy Small: The minister spoke a minute ago about the Indians' claim of inviolability of their property. Probably the approach has not been right, as far as the Indians are concerned. He made the statement that you cannot stop the progress of history; but, at the same time, neither can you blot out the past history that belongs to that particular piece of property. I do not think the band is objecting too much to having their property taken away from them. One can understand, as the minister has stated, that no one likes to be moved off his property, but consider the history of this land. It is a property which goes back to the time of His Christian Majesty of France in 1680. They did not like the land allotted to them as a reserve because it was not arable land, and they were then granted this piece of land by His Christian Majesty. The Jesuit fathers of a later day claimed the land was granted to them, and it ended up with a proclamation by General Gage awarding the land to the Caughnawaga Indians. All this is history having a particular bearing on the land they own. Whether it was under a French king or under an English king the land still remained crown property to which the Indians have a right that has been given to them by treaty and as the minister said, it has not been surrendered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It cannot be surrendered.


Robert Hardy Small: It can only be surrendered to the crown.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it cannot. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. If the reserve had been in Ontario instead of Quebec the Indian band could have surrendered the property for sale to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in return for a consideration, but because it is in Quebec, if the Indians surrender it then it reverts to the provincial crown. That is why there had to be special legislation passed by parliament to enable it to be expropriated. They can make a surrender but they can only make a surrender to the province. That is the situation.


Robert Hardy Small: What I am trying to bring to the attention of the house is that it has been the history of the Indians down through the years that everyone who has dealt with them has always ended up by giving them the
7232	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration wrong kind of deal. They have always received the short end, and it is natural that down through the years the Indians have become suspicious. You cannot blame them for that. I might read from the royal proclamation of 1763. I shall not read the first part but just the last:
And whereas great frauds and abuses have been committed in purchasing lands of the Indians to the great dissatisfaction of said Indians; in order, therefore, to prevent such irregularities for the future and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our justice, and determined to remove all reasonable cause of discontent . . .
Even though this statement by His Britannic Majesty is nearly two centuries old its effect should be observed today. When the matter was before the house last year I think the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace asked a question of the Minister of Transport with regard to the expropriation. I did not think "expropriation" was the right word. It was a case of them being compelled to give up the land, because after all the riparian rights to the land still belong to the crown irrespective of who owns the land. But the minister stated that while the lands were being expropriated they were only going to be used for the time being, until the seaway was in operation, and that they would then be returned. Then he paused and went on to say that did not necessarily mean to say they would be returned to the Indians. To whom are they going to be returned? Are they going to be put up for sale or transferred to the provincial authority for highways, or what is going to be done?
The point I am trying to get before the house is that in dealing with the Indians they should be entitled to the same kind of deal as a white man. The white man would be holding out for the highest price. Is it not the duty of the Indian affairs branch in looking after the interests of the Indians of the Caughnawaga reserve to hold out for the best deal they can get, and to see that the Indians get a square deal for a change? In land transactions today real estate operators are making fortunes in buying and selling property. In this case the Indian has inherited land which has come down to him through generations. He is proud of it and wants to remain there. He does not want to be removed. If he is going to be removed he would like a little more land added to his reserve to compensate for what is taken away. Surely he is entitled to get the very best price for it.
The matter of the crown is not in question. It is just a matter of how these Indians have been treated. The Caughnawagas are part of -the Mohawk nation. They belong to the old


Iroquois confederacy that gave yeoman service to the British crown and the French crown. This particular branch, the Caughnawaga tribe, did not give allegiance to the British crown but gave their allegiance to the French crown. Because of their allegiance to the French crown and their particular case I think they are entitled to a little more consideration than other Indians who surrendered their reserve lands in the past.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say one very brief word. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that the Indians are entitled to more consideration than white people. So far as the individual property is concerned, I do not think the particular Indian is entitled to any better deal than any other Canadian citizen with similar property, but because they live on a reserve I think the band is entitled to some consideration as well, and that is precisely what they are getting here.
It so happens that I went to Caughnawaga myself one Monday and I happened to buy a Gazette in the central station, Montreal, before I went to the reserve. I read in it a letter from one of the people who lived just outside the reserve complaining about the deal he had got from the St. Lawrence seaway authority, and he said, "I do not want a million for my property; I just want to be treated as well as the Indians."


Mr. Caslleden:: With regard to my motion for the production of papers, I would agree with the minister in this respect, that the Indians do require special attention. They are not like ordinary citizens who can go and obtain property in other places. Reserves were set aside for these people by treaties. Many of the treaties are 50 or 100 years old or even more.
I think those treaties should be honoured. The right of the Indians to maintain and defend the rights granted to them under the treaties should be honoured. Since the Indians are looked upon as the responsibility of the department, I think the department should undertake to see that the rights of the Indians are maintained; and if access to the courts is not available then it is the department's duty to see that these rights are maintained. The only difficulty, of course, would be that the department would be hiring counsel to fight a case against another branch of the government.
I do think that the matter of the treaties and the rights of the Indians under those treaties should be thoroughly settled, and the band should be informed of their position. What bothers these people is that they feel they have certain treaty rights, and there is no one there to tell them what rights they

are and where they stand with regard to them at the present time. In many cases they do not understand. I also agree with the minister that because the St. Lawrence seaway development has necessitated the taking of some 1,200 acres from the reserve the settlement should be a proper and just one, and in this case I think the Indians are entitled to just a little more than the people in the surrounding districts because of the special circumstances under which the Indians live.
I think it is a wise thing to see that the band gets an extra grant. Does the band get an extra grant as a band for the expropriation of the 1,200 acres, or is a portion deducted from what each individual receives?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can answer that very easily. We are attempting to make settlements for individual holders that are just as good as the settlements for individual holders off the reserve. Nothing whatever is deducted from what they get. In addition, the band is to get a substantial amount.


George Hugh Castleden: That grant comes from the seaway corporation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. The seaway has to pay the whole shot. After the new band council came to see me in the parliament buildings some time in July I spoke to Mr. Chevrier. I said, "They have a new council, and there are some of these people who do not really understand what has gone on in the past. They question whether you have not taken more land than you really need, and they also resent some of the surveyors who have been on the reserve because they claim they were not properly authorized." There were several complaints of that sort. I said, "Would you go down yourself and meet with the band council and take your best engineer with you and explain why you need all this land, what it is for and what you are proposing to do?"
Mr. Chevrier went there on the first day on which he and the band could agree, which I think was about four days later, and he spent the whole evening there. The director of Indian affairs went with him. I have every reason to believe from the reports that have reached me, that a good deal of the misunderstanding was removed on that occasion. One thing is that a certain amount of this land was taken for temporary installations while the canal is being built, but when construction is completed that land is going to be cleared and given back to the Indians in a better state than it is now. Another thing which apparently they had not all understood is that several swamps right on the edge of the village are going to be
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration filled, in order to make good building land. I think the hon. member has been to Caugh-nawaga and knows of the topography there. When this whole operation is completed I feel that not only will there be generous compensation but that the village and the reserve will be a better place for Indians, and that is what ought to be.


George Hugh Castleden: I agree with the minister in that. I would suggest to the minister that had he done that in the first place; had he given the Indians some explanation of what was going on and if a better explanation had been given by the authorities, we would have avoided a great deal of misunderstanding and trouble, and certainly a great deal in the way of hard feelings. The fact is that these people felt they were being imposed upon, that somebody was imposing his will upon them. That was a bad thing for their morale.
The incident that brought the matter to our attention was the fact that here was a proposition that had been carried on, a big construction project, and before any settlement was made some of the Indians found big drag line and excavation machinery in the backyard toppling over their homes. No settlement had been made. Scarcely any efforts had been made. I think it was a case of maladministration. I believe a little bit of foresight might have prevented much of the bad feeling and misunderstanding which was created.
I still think the department would do a great service to the Indian people if they would go to such bands, go with them over the original treaty, give them explanations, let them know what are their rights and where they stand, and recognize their rights. If they wish to appeal to the courts and take their case there, I think the right of access to the courts should not be denied them.
The other thing I wanted to mention was this. Suppose an individual Indian was given some kind of offer for his land. From some of the reports I have received rather unofficially, they were sort of like scribblings on a piece of paper that had no final standing whatsoever. Where an Indian was given to understand that a certain amount of money was to be made available to him for his property and he was not satisfied with it, to whom should he appeal? I understand that you had representatives of your department who were on the reserve throughout the whole matter. But the Indians found that the same people were on the appeal committee as were on the committee that was making the original offer. I refer to your departmental representatives. The result was that the Indians felt that

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration they were making an appeal to persons who were interested in the first place in making the offer.
As to the settlement of such cases, I do not know how many cases there are going to be where people are not going to be satisfied with the settlement. I was glad to know that after some negotiation, where these people did not wish to make a settlement for the amount of the offer an opportunity was given to them to receive an advance so they could settle in some other homes when it was possible for them to do that. I think on the whole a great deal of misunderstanding could have been avoided if the Indians had been taken into the confidence of the department, of the departmental officials and of the seaway authorities. Wild stories were going around. They were wondering what kind of a deal they were getting, and there seemed to be no one to whom they could appeal for any element of justice. They were not told what the deal was. They were not told who this authority was. They were wondering whether somebody was just moving in on them. Not knowing what the situation was they were naturally afraid that they were going to be exploited.
We are going to be following the settlement of the whole matter, and we shall see that justice is done. But the position the Indians themselves are in is a natural one. They feel resentment. First of all they feel incompetent to deal with the situation, and they feel that there is no one to whom they can appeal for justice. They feel that the departmental officials are biased in favour of the government and of the authorities. I think that is what has caused a great deal of the trouble. If returns had been made in the house and if the Indians had been given the necessary explanation, I think it would have helped a great deal to straighten out the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to say just a word about that matter. No doubt we made the great mistake of consulting the government of the band and not the opposition. But there was consultation from the very first day with the seaway authorities. Mr. Chevrier himself went there in the very early stages. There has been complete consultation with the duly elected authorities throughout. But what happened was that there were two parties on the reserve. In July there was an election and the opposition got in.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That will happen here next time.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so optimistic.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As soon as that happened and as soon as it was indicated to me that the new band council wanted to see me, I saw them at once. I listened to everything they had to say; and I may say that I went a great deal longer without my lunch then than I did today in order to do that. In the end I think the Indians were at least satisfied that they had been given a decent hearing. I arranged this meeting with Mr. Chevrier. We intend, of course, as is the right thing to do, to deal in the same way with the new council as we did with the old one. I do not know how else you can carry on this consultation except with those who are elected by the band. Things will probably be better now that there has been a recent election.
I do not think it is fair to the officials who have been carrying on this work, or to Mr. Chevrier and the seaway authorities to give the impression that there was not consultation. The fact is that there has been the fullest consultation at every stage. It so happens that there are many people who have property at Caughnawaga who do not live there but who live in other parts of Canada or even in the United States, who may not have been fully informed because they were not at home when these consultations took place, and who may have had reason to feel that they were not informed. However, the information was given through the regularly constituted authorities.


Robert Hardy Small: Does not the genesis of the trouble lie in the individual deals that were made, or the first offers that were made to members of the band? Was it not in the fact that some Indians sold at a rather low price for their property; other Indians waited for five or six months, and got a much better price than the one they were originally offered for the sale of their land? Was that not the cause of most of the trouble?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I do not think so.


George Hugh Castleden: This is the administration item of the Indian affairs branch. It is not my intention at this time to go too much into the administration of the whole set-up. However, there is one matter in which I am particularly interested and I think it is fundamental to the establishment of these people as Canadians and their integration as part of the Canadian people.
I refer to the matter of the education of the Indians. I have the departmental report before me. I might say that the situation now is a great improvement over what it was 10 or 15 years ago, having regard to the

standard of education. The number of students receiving high school education has greatly improved. The record, however, is still fairly bad looking.
I see that, as may be found at page 76 of the departmental report, the number of students is given in the various provinces. In British Columbia, with about 31,000 of Indian population, you have about 175 students in high school or taking high school courses, and that is at any rate a great improvement. In Alberta, with 15,000 there are about 70; in Saskatchewan, with 18,000, about 77; in Manitoba, with 19,000, about 78; Ontario with about 37,000 of Indian population, about 200; and Quebec, with 17,000, about 15 attending high school.
I was wondering what the departmental policy is with regard to continuation schools and the education of Indians there. Is the department still carrying on the schools under the inspection, let us say, of the provincial government?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: Is there any move under way or any intention to take any part of this work and try to make arrangements or provision for them to provide the facilities? Has the government in mind any change?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be glad to make a brief statement on this subject.


George Hugh Castleden: I think it would be very helpful.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to be the one to raise points of order on the minister's estimates, but I had hoped to have something to say on education.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should delay that until we get to the education item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not want to be critical, but perhaps my hon. friend might wait until the education item.


George Hugh Castleden: If the minister will make a statement on that item, it will be all right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to.


John Horne Blackmore: Before we leave entirely the item which covers the St. Lawrence seaway and the treatment of these Indians, I wonder if the minister has given any thought to the possibility of acquiring 1200 acres somewhere else which the Indians could have to look upon as theirs, so it could be said that none of their original holding had been taken from them. I have spoken several times on this matter in the house and I have discussed the matter with the minister, who has, I must say, always been extremely sympathetic and ready to do anything that could be done.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I gathered from him on one occasion that he saw numerous practical difficulties in the way of obtaining the land, but I think it is a fundamental principle that reservations should be held inviolate. If there are occasions like this one on which it becomes necessary during the development of the country that some of this land should be taken, then an equal amount of land, of equal value and in just as good a location, should be acquired somewhere and given to the Indians to make up for the land which has been taken away. My feeling is that whether or not the Indians of this generation wish to dispose of the reserve, it is our duty and responsibility to those who will come in the future, 75 or 100 years from now, to see that the reservation is held inviolate for the descendants of those people who are now on the reserves. Would the minister make a comment on that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be pleased to, sir. We did consider that very carefully and it would not, of course, be possible to duplicate the land. We would have to take some other land somewhere else. It just so happens that a large part of the reserve is unoccupied and has always been unoccupied. It is our feeling we should consult the council of the band, and if necessary the band itself, because my own opinion would be that the money would be better spent in improving what they now have and making some of that land more valuable and more productive rather than in extending the amount of land.
I know the hon. gentleman is thinking of Alberta and of some of the things we have done there where the Indians are engaged more in rural pursuits. The acquisition of more land is often very important. However, these Indians on the Caughnawaga reserve are not engaged in agriculture to any considerable extent. My feeling is, subject to their views of course, that the money could be better spent in improving what they have rather than in getting more acres, but we intend to consult them about it.


John Horne Blackmore: Could the minister tell us why it is that this land on the Caughnawaga reserve has not been used by the Indians? Is it because the land is not suitable for agriculture, or because it is heavily forested, or is there any other particular reason?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose it is part of that urbanization that is characteristic of this whole continent, and perhaps of the whole western world. Apparently these Indians can climb to dizzy heights that I could never hope to reach, and make a great deal more money than they could by cultivating their acres.
7236	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Horne Blackmore: The reason I bring the matter up, Mr. Chairman is that it was impressed upon me when we were in the Indian affairs committee that there is a constant temptation on the part of certain Indians to acquire a piece of land of their own and to seek to dispose of that land to advantage to a white man. There is an incessant pressure upon the part of the white man exerted upon almost every reserve to get into that reserve and get a piece of land and make it the land of the white man. I think that is all to the bad. While we are in a sort of process of flux, changing from one type of life to another, I think we must be exceedingly careful that nothing of that sort takes place on any reserve.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welfare of Indians
[Stage Direction]
73. Operation and maintenance, $2,638,947.
Ambrose A. Holowach: I have just a few remarks on item 73. The question of our treatment of the Canadian Indian is one in which we are all very interested. I should like to express myself on that point. It seems that the attitude of the public and their concern is insufficiently reflected in the administration of the affairs of the Canadian Indian. This item gives us an opportunity to express ourselves, to point out ways and means of improving the plight of the Canadian Indian and giving him a better deal than he is apparently now receiving.
This is not a political matter. In the last little while we have heard various speakers call for more honourable dealings with the Indians. I especially admired those speeches that were made by various members who are close to the problem, in which they tried to bring out the facts as they really are. In the main it is a rather sad story, and I think one that should give the white man a guilty conscience. We print statistics, write articles and give lectures on our accomplishments so far as the Indians are concerned. It seems to me that as legislators we should not be satisfied with our past accomplishments until such time as the health, sanitation, opportunities for local self government and self determination of the Indian is more equal to those enjoyed by the white people of this country. The Canadian public know that is not the case today, and they insist that we do something about it, because it is a matter of concern to everyone who values social justice and recognizes that we do have responsibilities to these people.
Let us look into this a little deeper. Over the years we have spent millions in order to build up the economies of other countries. During the past five years we have spent over $128 million on the Colombo plan. Just


a few days ago we voted another $34,400,000 for that same plan. In addition, since the war we have spent over $4 billion to help the economies of certain countries. Those are fine humanitarian acts, but it seems to me we should follow the moral principle that charity can be exercised better at home through helping these people. I do not understand why we cannot make available to them some of the great surpluses of food and clothing we have in this country. It seems incredible that in a country such as ours, when we are enjoying an unpredecented prosperity, many of the 155,000 Indians in this country do not know what it means to be out of want. The various articles we read in the newspapers draw our attention to the shameful situation.
The minister will recall that last year Jack Deakin wrote a series of articles for the Edmonton Journal which revealed that shameful situation. I should like to read a few comments that are pertinent to this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman recalls, but I was in Edmonton some time after that and I pointed out that there were some rather serious inaccuracies in those articles. I admit that conditions are not what we would like to see them, but I think the writer of the article, whom I met after that time, himself conceded that some of the things were not quite as they appeared in that article.


Ambrose A. Holowach: I quite appreciate what the minister has said. Nevertheless he will admit that much of what appeared in these articles were facts. This editorial reads:
Canadians are generally aware that this country's treatment of its Indians makes a shabby story. Nevertheless, we imagine that the series of articles by Jack Deakin which the Journal has published in recent days will come as a shock to most of our readers. Mr. Deakin has been visiting the Indian reservations in northwestern Alberta and he reports appalling conditions of hunger, squalor, disease and general misery-far worse than anything to be found in the southern and central parts of the province.
In the more thickly settled areas, conditions on the reservations become widely known, and the various bands have friends to take their part and insist that matters be improved. The northern tribes, on the other hand, are truly "forgotten men". Few know of their plight; outsiders are seldom in a position to help; and so far as the federal Indian affairs department at Ottawa is concerned, indifference seems to reign supreme.
The article continues in this vein:
The miserable state of the northern Indians is often blamed on their own laziness or incompetence, but there is no evidence that this is so. Like many primitive peoples, they have been overwhelmed by changing conditions, with which they cannot cope without help. Their ancestors lived solely by hunting, trapping and fishing, but with the advance of civilization and the depletion of the game, this way of life can no longer support

them. Yet the government, whose wards they are, is doing little to fit them for other methods of gaining a living. Inevitably, we now find them living in the extreme of poverty, in miserable shacks or tents, without adequate clothing or blankets, undernourished, often sick, and in many cases dependent upon a thoroughly inadequate and unbalanced relief ration. The only agency of the federal government which is genuinely helping them is the medical service; but even here its work seems to consist in taking adults and children to hospital, curing them if possible and then sending them back to the conditions which caused the illness in the first place.
It is my feeling that we should approach this matter as one that is deeply human, in addition to recognizing that we have a legal responsibility by reason of the various treaties we have signed with the Indians. I wonder why we should not give them a brand new deal. I suggest to the minister that he prepare an all-embracing program that has been carefully worked out and submit it to the house at the next session, one that will also rewrite some of the game laws which apparently are operating to the disadvantage of the Indian.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Lethbridge I feel that in any over-all consideration of improving their plight we should certainly retain the reservation as a sanctuary for the Indians. On the basis of some of the information we have received with respect to what is being done on those reservations I am led to say they are nothing more than glorified concentration camps. I urge the minister to make an improvement in their program in order to restore some respect and dignity to these aboriginal people.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs branch-
Education-
77. Administration, operation and maintenance, $9,678,096.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I promised the hon. member for Yorkton that I would say something on item No. 77 about the educational program, and I shall try to make this just as brief as I possibly can.
It has been the view of the department for some time that the best way to educate Indian children is in the same schools with other children, and wherever it is possible to make arrangements with the local or provincial authorities on any reasonable terms that is what we are now trying to do.
The second best way, if the other is not feasible, is to have day schools wherever the Indians live a sedentary life and where the home conditions are such that they will not be deprived thereby of home influence. We also recognize that there are many nomadic Indians in the north and there are a great many cases where there are unsatisfactory
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration homes, broken families or orphans. The residential schools which have done such a magnificent job over the years will, I am sorry to say, likely have a very important role in Indian education for a long time to come.
As I think the committee knows, the Indian population is growing faster than the rest of the Canadian population, though it is not added to by immigration and it is subtracted from by enfranchisement. This increased population is pressing with a severity that increases with the years upon the traditional means of subsistence. It is imperative and urgent that new ways be found for Indians to make a living.
There has been an increasing stress over the past few years and there will be still more stress in the future on vocational education and on ordinary high school education where-ever the pupils are promising. I have persuaded the Minister of Finance quite recently to permit me to establish a system of scholarships for promising young Indians both for high school and university. The present policy in any event is to see that no one is denied the chance to go on to high school if he is properly qualified and the family is willing to have him go. Of course, in the case of self-supporting Indians we do our utmost to encourage them to bear a reasonable share of the cost themselves, but if this is not possible they are not deprived on that account.
I do think this is far and away the most important part of our work in the Indian affairs branch. We have a considerable program for the construction of schools, but we also have a considerable program which is growing every year for capital assistance to ordinary schools within the provinces where Indians are enrolled and for sustaining grants to such schools, in proportion to the number of Indian pupils in those schools. There is no doubt whatsoever about the success of this program wherever it has been tried.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased indeed to hear the minister express the views he has just presented in spite of his confession-I think it amounted to a confession, though that is scarcely a fair word because it is not his fault-to the effect that the whole system of Indian education as far as success or failure is concerned has simply broken down, if there was ever anything which could break down.
What I mean to say is that the results have been totally and completely inadequate and the Indian education program has been hodge podge, divided as it is between provincial, local and dominion responsibility, and it has not been fulfilling the role for which it was
7238	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration created. I would warn the minister that some five or six years ago I said in this house almost exactly the same thing he has said, for which I was taken to task by a certain journal in the country and defended by others. I made the terrible mistake in that while I congratulated the residential schools for the fine work they had done in many directions, I went on to say practically the same thing the minister said today to the effect that wherever it is possible it is better to take the school to the Indian than to take the Indian to the school.
My chief reason for saying this is that when a young Indian lad goes to a high school he enters a dream world, a world about which he has heard but which to him has no particular reality. The same is true of the curriculum, which does not permit him to have his education become a reality to him, and he is not able to relate it to the events of his every day life and his habits. The young Indian boy or girl enters his dream world for a year or two and then returns to the conditions which exist on the reserve. These are conditions which I need not describe at this point and which are fully known to the minister and many hon. members of this house, conditions created by economic necessity and by the greed of the white man, who put the Indian on land which would not maintain a gopher. That is so with regard to my own prairie country, and I think the same thing is largely so in the east. There is a situation of unreality. When the young lad or girl goes back to his or her home they meet with the same old conditions, and I am informed that within a month or so or at the most within a year they are back in the social habits that prevail on the reserve.
I certainly hope the minister's ideas will be carried out and that there is a greater contact between the two races. It will have a considerable effect upon the Indians which is not possible when the children are sent away to residential schools, quite often some distance away. When Indian boys and girls go to schools where they can come in contact with other children, with children-we may be right or wrong in this-of what we consider a better type of civilization than that of our red brothers; when they come in contact with these different social habits, that contact is translated into a form of education for those children. In my opinion that is much more valuable than the academic training they may be given.
I could talk on this subject for a long time. For instance, I could talk on the curriculum of the Indian schools and what it should be. I am one who has never admitted that vocational training is in fact actual education. It is true it is part of education, but I have


always refused to see vocational training as education. One of the events of my life was the opportunity I had to study the education of native peoples in Kenya, the Rhodesias and South Africa. I admit I changed my mind somewhat in regard to those primitive people, but that is all. While there I saw the value of vocational training among primitive people.
Wherever possible I am in favour of having the Indian attend the same public school as his white brother, if possible on a mixed basis. In case I should be misunderstood again, may I repeat that I am not detracting in any way from the work done by the residential schools in various parts of the country. But I do suggest that their function today is not as necessary as it was in past days. We have many new media of education in the way of television and radio; we have quicker means of transportation; therefore I do not think the residential school is as necessary today as when it was first originated.
I should like to see the minister get his estimates through, but may I suggest to him that he would have got them through much faster if he had not made such extensive speeches on almost every item. I want to draw his attention to what has been done in northern Saskatchewan in this regard. The minister of education is carrying out some experiments in connection with Indian schools. He has selected young men who are particularly fitted for this type of work. They are paid extra salaries and are sent up into the north where the schools are literally being taken to the Indians rather than the Indians being taken to the schools. We have reason to believe that that experiment is meeting with considerable success.
I shall close by saying that I am delighted to find the minister has the same ideas that I have had for many years in connection with Indian education. I was taken to task for having them some years ago, but I think that was due to misunderstanding and misquotation. I think the minister is on the right track, and I wish him every success.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs branch-
Education-
78. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $4,441,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: When item 77 was before the committee I resisted getting into a debate on policy and I am going to try to resist getting into a similar debate on this item, though in view of what has been said on item 77 I must say that I do have definite reservations particularly in connection with this construction item, because in my view there is not sufficient assistance being given to residential

Income Tax
schools in the way of construction. To that extent I must make reservations with regard to the principle enunciated by the minister and other members who have spoken.
While I am not opposed to integrating Indian and white children where possible, I believe that what has happened and will happen to an increasing extent is that there will be a greater emphasis on the building of day schools for Indians, which have a restricted application, with less attention paid to the residential school, which in a vast number of cases is the only school the Indian has an opportunity to attend. What I gather from the minister is that his policy contemplates the eventual extinction of the residential school.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not think that would happen for a century.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that, but I think his policy is to concentrate overmuch on the day school aspect at the expense of the residential school. I submit that we must concentrate to a greater degree on improving the facilities and standards available at the residential schools. Had it not been for the residential schools and the sacrifices of those who started them, there would be no Indian education at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not agree more completely.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They ran them with practically no support, and now they are being more or less condemned. When compared with the standards at which they should be maintained they are most certainly being abandoned and left in an almost derelict fashion. We should have a sense of proportion in these things, and we should concentrate to an equal degree, if not to a greater degree, on maintaining and improving the facilities at the residential schools and not exclusively on improving the situation with regard to day schools.
There are some questions I should like to ask with regard to the residential schools at Kamloops and at Lytton. There is a big program under way at Williams Lake, and I do not think I have too much criticism to voice in that connection. The residential school at Kamloops is most anxious to extend its high school facilities. That is the only school available to Indians over a very large area. The residential school at Lytton is an old-time school, and it has rendered outstanding service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is perfectly true.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are starved for adequate accommodation. I would ask the minister to
give us some assurance that their needs will be taken care of in the very near future.


George Hugh Castleden: Would the minister also give an explanation of the item of $200,000 in the supplementary estimates for operation and maintenance under welfare?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether you would find it convenient to take the chair so I might ask leave to revert to the introduction of bills and move first reading of the tax agreements that were referred to this morning.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to the item "introduction of bills"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN-UNITED STATES TAX CONVENTION ACT
Walter Edward Harris: for leave to introduce Bill No. 451, to amend the Canada-United States of America Tax Convention Act, 1943.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


INCOME TAX
Walter Edward Harris: for leave to introduce Bill No. 452, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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


DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Indian affairs branch-
Education-
78. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $4,441,000.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the adjournment I promised to deal with a couple of questions asked by the hon. member for Kamloops. One was with relation
7240	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to our plans for high school facilities at Kamloops. I might say that we have something like $120,000 committed for expansion there. The details of the plan of expansion are being worked out at the present time. At Lytton we are planning to spend about $7,000 for repairs including painting, repairs to the roof and renovating of the plumbing, which I understand is very badly needed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On the second item, is there anything for provision of new teacher accommodation? That is one of the pressing problems there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid my own experience with building would suggest in my mind that you could not build much living accommodation for $7,000, but I shall look into that question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to say a few
words on this item, because during the discussion of Indian affairs I feel that with respect to education and the facilities that are being provided we have heard quite a bit of some of the problems that exist. In my opinion there are also some fairly bright spots in the country, and as far as I am concerned the program of participation in construction adopted in one area in my constituency is really beginning to show some fruits. I am thinking particularly at the moment of the Alert Bay area, where in my opinion almost a complete transformation is under way.
I might tell the committee that the Indian affairs branch has co-operated with the Alert Bay school board in the construction and operation of a school there which is used both by children of Indian origin and all others in the community. The last figures I noticed showed that the school population was something like 100 Indian children and 80 some odd children of other origins. That does not include the younger Indian children who are in a day school operated by the department. In addition, I think it is interesting to note that the old residential school is being used not for school purposes but for residential purposes for children who come from the smaller reserves somewhat more remote from that centre.
I must say it has been something of a joy to me to see the transformation even in the last 10 or 11 years since I first had the opportunity to see what was taking place with respect to the younger Indian population in that area. There is an almost complete mingling of the various elements of that community. I was particularly interested in the suggestion of the minister, actually on an earlier item, that it is his intention to supplement what is being done in that direction by


increased opportunities for vocational training and for scholarships. I have been somewhat concerned as to what some of these young people were going to find to do in that area. For that reason I am glad the minister has announced that policy and I hope it will be carried into effect as rapidly as feasible.
Until the hon. member for Kamloops mentioned his interest in what was going to be done with respect to a couple of schools in his area I was a little puzzled by his reference to what he claimed, as I understood him, was a disparity between the emphasis being placed on help for residential schools and help for day schools. Actually the amount in the estimates under this item seems to be more or less evenly divided between the two types of Indian schools.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But there are more residential schools, and they have been there longer.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That may be so in some areas, but I felt I should like to take a few minutes to tell the committee that at least in the one area I have mentioned specifically the program the minister was discussing is in my opinion paying off quite well, though it may not be perfect in every detail yet.


John George Diefenbaker: What are the general
plans for construction this year? Would the minister say what the plan is for Saskatchewan and how much is going to be spent on the various reserves in the construction of buildings or the building of roads and the like?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This has to do only with schools.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this item 78?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Item 78, and it has to do with education.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, as it appears in the public accounts it has to do with the construction or acquisition of buildings, works, lands and new equipment. It includes far more than schools.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think if the hon. gentleman will look at item 74 passed some time ago he will find that refers to other construction.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, yes; that is the earlier one.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we could now
take the citizenship items, sir.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is all right with us if it is all right with the chair. I understood we were going to go through to the end and then revert.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really regard the national gallery as something almost separate from my department, so I suggest we might take the citizenship registration branch and then the citizenship branch.


William Alfred Robinson: Is that resolution 58?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; 59.
Citizenship-
59. Citizenship registration branch, $398,265.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Perhaps the minister would indicate whether he would like us to discuss the actual granting of citizenship to prospective citizens under the registration branch or under the citizenship branch proper.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Registration is the proper item, and I should like to boast that we had about five times as many people become citizens in 1955 as in 1954.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Under this item I should like to say first that I think Montreal has been well served in the past year and a half by its new citizenship court. The backlog in that city, which was so very great, has been largely eliminated as a result of the establishment of the court and people seem to get their citizenship papers without much difficulty. However, there are occasions when in dealing with the work of the department, which conducts so much of its operations in camera, unusual situations come to light. Many of these, as was demonstrated in the case of the immigration branch, are matters where somebody cannot get from the department what they want and they therefore begin to complain about it.
It is unusual, however, when we find a situation in which someone has obtained from the department what they want under circumstances which, to say the least, are somewhat peculiar. In a situation like that the person, having obtained her wish, is not going to complain about it. The department is not going to bring in any question of procedure they may have followed previously. The only hope-and it is an unusual one-is where a citizenship application is opposed by someone else, namely by some private citizen. I do not know how often this happens, but it certainly is an unusual situation. That is why a particular case has come to my attention which causes me some little concern because it casts doubt, first of all, upon certain ways the minister has of dealing with things and, second, upon certain of the procedures which are being followed in the citizenship court itself, when a case is opposed.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I am going to quote from certain actual court documents in this case, Mr. Chairman. In the very beginning I think the point should be made that the purpose of the citizenship court, the purpose of any such court in Canada, is to act in an advisory capacity to the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The purpose of the citizenship court.


William McLean Hamilton: The
purpose of the citizenship court is to act in an advisory capacity to the minister. It is his responsibility to make decisions, as shown in section 10 of the act. Since this case has been fairly widely publicized, we need have no hesitation in naming the individual. It is the case of Madame Giovanna Elisa Feltri-nelli. I give the minister that information now in the beginning, because I know he is familiar with it and I want him to follow my argument.
Why this application for citizenship by Madame Feltrinelli was opposed is of no concern to this house. It is one of those things where there is a possibility of many millions of dollars being at stake. It is a highly complicated matter. Be that as it may, certain people saw fit, within the provisions of the citizenship act, to oppose her application.
On what grounds did they oppose it? They had various grounds, many of them complicated. But I should like to put forward one set of circumstances which they brought to the attention of the court in Canada and which show sometimes just how curious can be the minister's decision.
As we know, the citizenship act in section 10 specifically calls for an applicant to reside continuously in Canada for a period of one year immediately preceding the date of application. Here is the evidence signed by the president of the court of Canadian citizenship. Far from being in Canada during most of this past year, we find that this particular applicant has led a very pleasant life. Actually it is a very pleasant life in Canada too; let me say that at once. But she has led a very pleasant life in other parts of the world. In his reasons for the decision the president of the court of Canadian citizenship says in part:
Has she resided in Canada for at least one year immediately preceding the date of her application, that is from December, 1954 to December, 1955?
She made one trip to Geneva, Switzerland, on January 27, 1955, and one trip to London and Italy in March, 1955. These trips were made by plane from New York. She also made a short trip to New York for a day or so on December 1, 1954, and January 10, 1955.
It is explained that the applicant was obliged to travel extensively both in Switzerland and in Italy by reason of opposant's actions.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration From April 25, 1955, to December 3, 1955, the petitioner lived aboard a yacht owned by the Merida Company, an incorporated company under the laws of the province of Quebec flying British and Canadian merchant marine flags.
I intersperse this remark here in order to point out that that is a seven-month period during which this woman resided on a yacht. Later in the reasons for the decision we find this.
During this period the yacht travelled in the Mediterranean sea where stops-over were made when necessary.
She had to be in Rome and London on the 7th, the 8th, and the 9th of July, in relation to opposant's actions.
From October 3, 1955, to December 16, 1955, the petitioner had to go to New York to consult with her attorneys and on October 28, 1955, she had to be in Rome to see her attorney.
Good heavens, Mr. Chairman, I have gone over this record three or four times and I cannot see where she possibly could have been in Canada at all except when she flew in for a day or two and then went right out to go to Geneva or to Rome or back to her yacht and the Mediterranean.


John George Diefenbaker: An itinerant Canadian.


William McLean Hamilton: Then, of course, when she had satisfied the requirements of the act, according to the way in which she looked at it, the judge finds as follows:
Since December 16,	1955, that is after the
filing of her petition, the petitioner has mostly lived in Italy to look after proceedings, to make necessary appearances in court.
Then finally the judge of the court says this, and it is interesting in the light of what I have read:
It is the opinion of this court that the absence from Canada during the year preceding the application are sufficiently explained and that, in law, the applicant may be considered as having resided in Canada during the year preceding the date of her application.


An hon. Member:: What is the name of the judge?


William McLean Hamilton: Paul Fontaine is the name of the president of the court of Canadian citizenship.


John George Diefenbaker: How did she get her mail?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Which mail?


William McLean Hamilton: That is only one of the several reasons why these people felt justified in opposing the application for Canadian citizenship of this particular lady. As I have said, there are a number of other reasons, many of them more complicated and which I am not going to go into at this point. Let us for a moment at this point think how tough it would have been or,
I should say, how tough it is for some people [Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace).)
who do not have yachts in the Mediterranean or who do not get over to Rome every two or three months, who cannot fly down to New York to look after some of their business affairs, to get into Canada, and get their citizenship-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is sometimes tough also for those who have boats.


John George Diefenbaker: What is this, the voice of experience?


William McLean Hamilton: -and
how easy it seems to be in this particular case, Mr. Chairman. The only person I can think of who got into Canada as easily as this, under somewhat questionable circumstances, seems to be Hal Banks, the vicepresident of the Canadian seamen's union and he was jet propelled by this department as well.


An hon. Member:: You mean he missed the boat?


William McLean Hamilton: When I talk about jet propulsion, that is exactly what happened in this case. We all know that normally there are delays following these applications for hearing, for a week, two weeks or a month. No one expects, of course, to do business on the same day on which the application is made. But Madame Feltrinelli apparently has an inside track. She applied for her naturalization on December 16, 1955 and on March 16, 1956, after a lapse of the statutory minimum of three months to the day, her case was heard by the citizenship court. Perhaps I should congratulate the minister on such marvellous precision, and I would if I thought everybody had obtained the same treatment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not at all unusual in that court.


William McLean Hamilton: Unfortunately I know from my personal experience that they do not.
We now come to another interesting point. I do not know whether or not the minister knows this, but he certainly should. According to my understanding these citizenship courts are supposed to be very similar to courts of law. They certainly are not supposed to be star chambers. Yet on the statement of this lady's attorney I am informed that the attorneys opposing this citizenship application were excluded from the courtroom when the case was being heard. To the best of my knowledge if a person is opposing an action in any other court, the person who is opposing has a right to have his attorneys in the court. Here they were specifically excluded. The note I have here is very specific and very clear on that particular point.

There is a sidelight on this. In the course of these star chamber proceedings the court heard certain evidence. When it handed down a written judgment it said, in part, that in the course of her examination the petitioner admitted that she had no permanent residence in the city of Montreal, and that she was actually domiciled at Stanbridge East, Missis-quoi county, province of Quebec. We all know that the citizenship act specifically requires that these proceedings take place in the area where the applicant is domiciled.
This matter was referred to the minister, because any debate involving the jurisdiction of the court may be and should be decided by the minister. Finally the judgment of the court declared that the court had jurisdiction even though the court also declared that the applicant had never had a residence in the district where the court did have jurisdiction. This action is specifically in opposition to the provisions of the act. These things and many others were brought to the attention of the minister by correspondence and telephone calls, but despite this at the very earliest possible opportunity the certificate was signed. Let me give the date, Mr. Chairman, because it is interesting. The certificate was processed and signed here in Ottawa on April 28. April 28 was a Saturday when government offices normally are closed. I ask again, why this particular treatment for this particular applicant?
Then we come back to Montreal, and part of the process of citizenship is that the person is to take pride in obtaining this citizenship and accept it publicly. In this particular case the applicant was sworn in all by herself at what seems to have been a secret ceremony on the morning of April 30. In other words, her certificate was processed and signed in Ottawa on Saturday morning. It was rushed down to Montreal and through some unknown means of communication the applicant turns up and has a special session for the presentation of her certificate on Monday morning. Those are rather startling facts.
Finally, following this particular case along to show what happens when the minister is sympathetic with one, and perhaps when you have made particular arrangements-I would not know-the attorney for the person who is opposing this application for citizenship had become more and more frustrated. He had interviews with the minister but did not seem to be getting anywhere. He had interviews with the minister's staff. There seemed to be misunderstanding. He was getting sympathy in
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration one direction and then nothing was happening. Finally he wired the minister. The wire is dated May 22, 1956, and reads:
I have what appears to be evidence pointing to perjury in Feltrinelli matter. Are you interested in having this evidence?
A couple of days later he received a reply from the assistant registrar of the department, who said:
I have been instructed by the minister to acknowledge your telegram of May 22, 1956 and to inform you that any evidence of perjury you may wish to submit concerning the application for Canadian	citizenship	of Mrs.	Giovanna	Elisa
Feltrinelli will be given careful consideration.
The attorney writes back to the assistant registrar	who had	sent	him	this letter. Ishall not	read the	letter	because it is	long,but in effect he says that he feels he has had so much difficulty at various levels in the department in getting an understanding on this case that he wants a firm, definite undertaking from the minister and then he will submit to the minister, and to no one else, the evidence	in order	that	the	minister	must
accept responsibility for it. Perhaps I should read the letter into the record, Mr. Chairman. It is from Nathan A. Levitsky, the solicitor for this opposant, and it is addressed to Mr. W. M. Haugan, assistant registrar, Department of Citizenship and Immigration:
I have your letter of May 24 which came in reply to my telegram of May 22 addressed to the Hon. J. Pickersgill, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
You will remember that on a previous occasion an agreement was made for a certain course of procedure; this agreement was made in your office in the presence of Mr. Duggan, Mr. Manion, yourself and myself; this agreement was breached by your department without denunciation or explanation. Coupled with the foregoing is the fact that the Feltrinelli certificate of naturalization was signed on a Saturday, a non-business day (theoretically your offices are closed), and was delivered to Mrs. Feltrinelli in Montreal at a secret session of the court on the following Mrnday morning in violation of section 33 of the citizenship act.
On another occasion Mr. Pickersgill told me (and Mr. Manion subsequently confirmed it to me) that the minister would not interfere with a judgment of his subordinate.
Revocation of the Feltrinelli citizenship, pursuant to section 19 of the citizenship act, requires the recommendation of the minister to the governor in council; I am afraid that if I submit the evidence to anybody but the minister that a decision will again be made below the minister's level and that the minister will again feel that he does not want to interfere with the decision of a subordinate. Frankly, I am worried that if I submit the information on perjury to anyone less than the minister that the same person or persons
ho literally railroaded through the Feltrinelli citizenship will again work behind the scenes and present the minister with another fait accompli.
Please do not interpret anything in this letter as being directed to yourself. I am fully aware of your suggestion for calling in Mrs. Feltrinelli's passports in order to obtain the data on her

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
residence in Canada and it was an excellent suggestion:	Unfortunately it was never followed
through. I therefore come to the sad conclusion that I am not willing to deliver up the evidence to anyone but the minister because I want the responsibility for action or inactivity to rest squarely and solely on his shoulders in order that he may implement the provisions of section 19 of the citizenship act.
As you know I am a member of the bar for 18 years, I have a serious practice, and when X tell you that I have what appears to be evidence pointing towards perjury, I make the statement on the full knowledge that the allegations are serious and the consequences to Mrs. Feltrinelli are serious. What I have to say and submit should therefore be taken seriously. I urge you to take this matter up with the minister in order that he may assume a very serious attitude towards this unwholesome and unfortunate situation. I shall be glad to submit my information to him personally.
The letter is signed by Nathan A. Levitsky.
I do not think it is possible to be more definite than that. What did the minister do? The minister replied by letter which was read to me today over long distance telephone from Montreal, and I took it down. There is an opening paragraph which is a reference to the correspondence, and then the letter goes on to say:
If you are satisfied that the information and material in your possession would support a charge of perjury you are, of course, free to take appropriate action in the courts.
The information and material on the department's file does not warrant any action in this matter at this time by this department.
The letter is signed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration himself. That is the story, Mr. Chairman, with perhaps one little addition.
The attorney in this case is so sure of his facts, is so sure that the government has carried on this case in a sloppy, ineffective and dubious way and that it does not know what justification there is for granting this citizenship that he wrote a letter addressed to the clerk of the privy council which says in part:
I will give $100 to the Ottawa children's hospital if the Department of Citizenship and Immigration can tell with accuracy the exact dates of Mrs. Feltrinelli's residence in Canada since December 16, 1951. I think that you will agree with me that any sovereign state should normally have this information before extending to an alien the privilege of its naturalization; ... I will give a further sum of $100 to the Ottawa children's hospital in the event that subsequent information will indicate that Mrs. Feltrinelli spent more than six months in all in Canada from December, 1951 to December, 1955. The best way of course of ascertaining this information is by requesting Mrs. Feltrinelli to submit the passports which she had during the past five years.


An hon. Member:: This is a terrible case, isn't it?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I heard a sotto voce observation to' the effect that this is a terrible case. Let me say that what I have presented tonight is only a fraction of the case. I did not want to confuse the committee with the mass of information that is available in this particular case. It is one of those cases where millions of dollars are at stake, the background extends over a long period of time, and many other factors have entered into it including a question of perjury in the United States and a question as to whether a certain individual had applied for admission into Brazil. These and many other questions enter into this particular situation.
However, Mr. Chairman, two facts which I have put before this committee tonight stand out stark and clear above everything else. One is that here is a person whose application for citizenship was expedited and put through in an almost miraculous way, despite the fact that practically every week of the required period of residence in Canada was spent outside Canada and seven months of it were spent on a yacht in the Mediterranean. The second fact that stands out clearly is that this court in Montreal excluded during the major part of its hearings and during its examination of the applicant the representatives of those who had opposed the application.
The material I have here is also in the minister's file. It has been placed in my hands by the attorney representing those who are opposed to this application. I have given a brief resume of this case to the committee. I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by simply asking these questions. Has this department now reached a stage at which, in addition to all the other things that seem to affect its reasoning, entry into Canada can be facilitated for an individual who is rich and made difficult or impossible for one who is poor? Can the obtaining of citizenship in this country be made a matter of instantaneous decision for one who has enough money to be in a position to spend the better part of a year on a yacht in the Mediterranean and thus establish her requirements for citizenship while, as we know, thousands of people without these monetary advantages wait a matter of weeks or months for this same purpose? And finally, have we reached a point where a minister of the crown in full possession of facts such as these and with a full knowledge of the procedures carried on by the court in Montreal will refuse to intervene and refuse to act?
When this information was first brought to me I was told the story verbally by a man who came to me and said that he was unable

to get anywhere with the department. I refused to believe his tale, and the reason the documentation here is so complete and extensive is that I insisted at every stage of this case that it be documented in this fashion. The story is almost unbelievable even if it were to occur in any country, let alone a country with a government that is so fond of speaking about democracy.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Borden Hamilton: Yes, certainly.


Leon David Crestohl: It appears to me as though the entire facts of the case pivot around the question of perjury. There is only one authority that can establish whether or not perjury was actually committed, and that is the criminal court of the jurisdiction where the alleged perjury is deemed to have been committed. Can the hon. gentleman tell the committee whether this complaint of perjury was brought to the attention of the criminal courts and whether there was a conviction for perjury?


William McLean Hamilton: shall be delighted to answer that question in this way, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is a specific answer. The minister's letter which recommended that a charge of perjury be brought before the courts is dated July 26, 1956. The telegram I read to the committee which was the first indication is dated May 22, 1956. Obviously within that framework it would be impossible for the case to have been brought to court up to this point. I would like to ask one further question. Have we now reached a point where the government is asking private citizens to do its work for it?
I cannot agree with the implication in the question which was directed to me, because here is a case where, when an individual comes forward and says, "Within the framework of my knowledge I have evidence to show that perjury was committed in applying for this citizenship," the government officials reply by saying, "We do not want any part of it; if you do not like it go to court". In my estimation, Mr. Chairman, that is the government's job and not the job of the person opposing the application.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, is the minister not going to offer some explanation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought somebody else had something to say about this case. I have very few things to say because the
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration hon. member for Cartier disposed completely of the case. There is not the slightest evidence of perjury in the possession of the government. Simply because some interested party alleges perjury is no ground for the government to assume that there was perjury, until a competent court decides accordingly. There was nothing that it would have been proper for me to do in that case, I am quite confident, because I had the advice of the law officers of the crown before I made that reply. It would be a gross invasion of provincial rights for a minister without any information to attempt to direct the laying of a charge in the criminal court in connection with a matter in which he had no direct interest.


William McLean Hamilton: Will the minister assure me that residence on a yacht for a year and a half or for years preceding an application for Canadian citizenship is sufficient in his eyes, that you do not have to reside in Canada at all? If you have enough money you can live on a yacht plying the Mediterranean or travel down to Tahiti or anywhere else in the world as long as it happens to be flying the Canadian flag? That constitutes residence in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is quite obvious that such questions of fact are decided by the courts. The minister is not a court of appeal on questions of fact. We granted 58,000 certificates last year and if the minister had attempted to constitute himself a court of appeal on matters of fact there would not have been very many granted if there had been many contested. It is quite absurd to suggest that the minister should attempt to determine these questions of fact.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it not strange that exactly the opposite position was taken this afternoon by the minister in connection with matters of immigration, when the minister stated that his position was one of a court of appeal to review not questions of law but questions of fact? This is the most extraordinary minister with whom I have ever had any dealings. He tells us this afternoon that he takes one position and one role, takes it with a glibness and assurance which astounds us, and then later when it suits his convenience and his political purpose he takes another with glibness and assurance which is even more astounding.
He says he took the advice of the law officers of the crown with respect to the matter of perjury. One may respectfully disagree with the opinion of the law officers of the crown on that particular question; but be that as it may, I should like to ask the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration minister if he took the opinion of the law officers of the crown as to the propriety and completeness of the proceedings upon which the granting of citizenship was based. He had all sorts of information in his possession which would raise questions, but it did not occur to this minister at that stage of the proceedings to submit the matter for the opinion of the law officers. It was only when it became personally inconvenient for him that he submitted it for their opinion, and he asked the law officers of the crown as to whether it was proper that counsel for the opposants were not admitted to the hearing of the case in which the opposants were interested and where the right of opposants to appear is granted. Yet their counsel were not admitted.
Why did not the minister ask the opinion of his law officers or the officers of the Department of Justice? Why was it only when it became inconvenient and embarrassing to the government that they asked for the opinion of the law officers? That may be convenient for the purposes of the government but that answer will not satisfy this committee, and it will not satisfy people who have any semblance of regard for the rules and principles of justice as applied to the case mentioned by the minister.


John George Diefenbaker: I think we ought to have a few answers from the minister, particularly to the questions that have just been raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. Will the minister say whether it is proper that counsel for those contesting the citizenship application should not be allowed to be present when consideration was being given to the question of granting of citizenship? Is not that the very essence of that kind of administrative tyranny about which parliament has a right to speak out and speak out directly and definitely.
Why the haste? This is a case where a woman who was an itinerant traveller for a portion of five years suddenly within 48 hours felt it necessary to have a certificate of citizenship granted. It was not on a nonjuridical day, but it was on a Saturday when the government offices are not open. Why was the office opened on that day in order to permit this unearthly haste of granting the citizenship on the Monday? This is certainly a most unusual case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not in the least unusual.


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing unusual?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nothing unusual; not in the least, I may say.


John George Diefenbaker: I am talking at the moment-


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is unusual when there is misrepresentation.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says it is not an unusual case. That is the kind of thing that worries me. If it had been just one flagrant case; if it had been, to use a parliamentary expression, an oderiferous one, one of those subterranean cases; if it were not an astonishing case in the department of citizenship-


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: I think if we are going to discuss this case some of the rest of us ought to know something about it. This is a particular case mentioned by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace who says a man came to him. What was the interest of that man? Was he trying to keep Canada pure and Canadian citizenship on a high level, or did he have some other interest? Let us have the whole story.


William McLean Hamilton: did explain that, but the minister may have been otherwise engaged. I shall go back over it. I am glad the minister brought up the question. The man who came to me was an attorney for the person who was opposing this application for citizenship.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On what grounds?


William McLean Hamilton: I am
coming to that. I made it quite plain to the committee that this was an unusual case. First, it was being opposed, as so few cases are and, second, it was being opposed almost certainly because millions of dollars were at stake. When millions of dollars are at stake it becomes necessary that everybody do things properly and in accordance with the law. Under those circumstances-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The man who
came to see you represented these millions?


William McLean Hamilton: Wait until I am through; let me make my statement.


An hon. Member:: What's a million?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am trying to find out what the interest of the hon. member is.


William McLean Hamilton: Under those circumstances it was quite proper that the attorney should be heard. When they could not get that satisfaction they went to the minister and ran up against the stone wall which the minister erects at times. Then they came to the only people left in Canada who could and would bring their case to the attention of this house, and that is the opposition.
I might say in passing that this was not just the private property of the Minister of

Citizenship and Immigration. A letter was addressed to the Minister of Justice under date of May 3, 1956, outlining most of the details of this case as they existed up to that point, and a copy was sent to each member of the cabinet. Therefore it came right into the hands of the gentleman who asked me about this and stated that he knew nothing about it until this morning.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It sounds like the Frank McMahon offer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Since we have mentioned a great fortune, is it to the advantage of Canada that she should not be admitted to citizenship or that she should be admitted to citizenship? Let us get the whole story.


William McLean Hamilton: am delighted at the minister's question. I view this not as a particular case, as to whether it is to the advantage or to the disadvantage of Canada that a particular individual is given citizenship. I view this as a case where the rights of every person anywhere in this world applying for Canadian citizenship are at stake and where, by extension, the rights of every Canadian are at stake. Let me further point out that the rights of the Canadian lawyer himself to be heard in a court of law are clearly at stake in this particular case.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Pure altruism.


William McLean Hamilton: The
Minister of Trade and Commerce raised the point as to how I view this.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He appears to regard citizenship as a matter of trade and commerce.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am trying to point out the altruism of the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might point out a couple of facts that the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace did not think it worth while to mention. First, the competence of the court was challenged twice in the superior court before Mr. Justice Ralston, and he dismissed the challenge in both cases. The hon. gentleman did not think that was a material fact to mention, but it appeared to me to be material. Second, the objector in this case was not a Canadian citizen, nor did the objector have the slightest interest in Canada or Canadian citizenship. This was a private quarrel between litigants in another country, and it did not appear to me that it had anything to do with Canadian citizenship.


John George Diefenbaker: Then why the rush?


Leon David Crestohl: I might be able to understand the importance of the case the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace has brought
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration before the house this evening if he had brought before us one serious reason why this lady should not have been made a citizen of Canada; if, for example, he had said that this lady is a known communist, that this lady has criminal convictions, or that this lady has a record which would make her undesirable as a citizen of Canada. Not a single fact, not one bit of evidence, did he bring to the house to show that this lady was unworthy of Canadian citizenship.
What he did bring to the house, however, were facts which cast wholly unwarranted innuendoes on the judge of the citizenship court in Montreal and on the citizenship officials in Montreal, to exploit a private and personal quarrel between two people about whom I know nothing. To exploit a personal and private quarrel for the purpose of casting unwarranted innuendoes is an act which should be resented by this house, and it is certainly a wholly unwarranted act on the part of the gentleman who made those innuendoes.


William McLean Hamilton: To
deal for a moment with the observations of the hon. member for Cartier, I do not think that in listening for three years to immigration and citizenship cases brought to this house I have known of a more extensively documented and a more extensively backed single case than the one I have put before the house tonight. Any suggestion that it is a matter of innuendo is one of the most fanciful things. It just shows that the government members have nothing whatsoever on which to fall back in arguing this case, and therefore they wish to call the matter an innuendo.
Regarding the reason the jurisdiction of the court was challenged, the minister himself knows perfectly well that the findings of the citizenship court were specific that this applicant for citizenship-and I covered this in my remarks-did not have residence in the Montreal area where the court was operating. He also knows that the question of challenging the jurisdiction of the court had reference to this fact, and in no respect whatsoever to the facts of the case regarding star chamber proceedings, the residence on the Mediterranean or anything else I have brought forward. It is one of these legalistic businesses in which certain people periodically engage without any direct reference whatsoever and without any doubts as to the facts. The facts exist and the facts cannot be argued against. I should like to ask the minister one question at this point. What answer has he for the exclusion of the opposed attorney from these proceedings in Montreal?
7248	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman one question in return.


John George Diefenbaker: Are his estimates up?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no answer to give to the hon. gentleman's question, and I do not think it would be a proper thing for me to give an answer to it. What I did with this application, as I do with other applications, was to consider whether there were any facts which had not been brought before the court which I ought to take into account before I issued the certificate, and I could find none.
I want to ask the hon. gentleman this question. He has come into this house with a collection of material handed to him by a lawyer and he has made a charge against a Canadian citizen, a charge of the crime of perjury, which I imagine, if he had made that charge outside the house, would have laid him open to an action for defamation of character. Surely, if Canadian citizens or applicants for Canadian citizenship are going to be charged with perjury, the proper place to lay such charges is in the criminal courts and not under one's immunity here in the House of Commons.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister a question? Why did he not go outside the house before he made the charge against Mrs. Spalding that she had deserted her husband?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did make it outside the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where?


Mr. Rowe:: You made it right here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am seeking information of the minister. If he made that charge outside the house, it is outside my knowledge. I should like to know where he made it outside the house.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says that what took place here is what takes place in any ordinary case in his department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could use my own language. What I said was that it was not unusual for certificates to be signed on a Saturday, and it was not unusual to accommodate people who had urgent reasons for such accommodation. Both in the Montreal and Toronto courts we have cases about once or twice per week of people who, for some reason or other, because they want to make a visit to the United States or something, want to get their citizenship quickly. We do our very best to accommodate them, and I think most hon. members would think that was a proper thing to do.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, no one can deny that it is a very proper thing to


help a citizenship application along, but in this case I think it may be fairly stated that the degree of acceleration is not a common attribute of the department. I should like to ask the minister this question. How many cases of contested citizenship have there been in Canada during the last year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I haven't the foggiest
idea, sir.


William Earl Rowe: There must be a lot of fog in that department.


John George Diefenbaker: That pretty well describes this department in its entirety.


William Earl Rowe: You are just shovelling fog.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, there are about 50 officials of the minister's department in the gallery. I am reasonably sure that the great majority of them know a great deal more about the details of the administration of the minister's department than he does himself. They are specialists. The deputy minister is there. All these specialists are there. That is where they should be, and we appreciate them staying here until this hour to help the house.
But, Mr. Chairman, they are not serving any useful purpose up there looking down on us doing our work. When the minister reaches the point where he cannot answer a question, then I suggest that the proper place for the appropriate official to be is down here on the floor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think anyone can get the minister out of his fog.


William McLean Hamilton: I am wondering whether the minister would like to ask one of his officials to come down and aid him in answering the question, so we may know how many opposed citizenship cases there were during the past year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman knows how to go about taking the minister's place, and when he has succeeded in doing that he may do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When are you going to give us the opportunity?


William McLean Hamilton: Let
me make one other point. The minister made a most unfortunate innuendo a few moments ago to the effect that these charges of perjury were being made in the house by me.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


William McLean Hamilton: I
have read in detail to the house the various correspondence-the privilege was given

to me by this attorney-and the minister knows perfectly well that these charges of perjury were made in the correspondence to him and outside of this house, and that I am merely bringing to the attention of the house something which the minister himself has flatly refused to deal with, accept or give any cognizance to.


Leon David Crestohl: Why does somebody not
have the courage to lay a complaint?


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Borden Hamilton: You are a corporation counsel.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I am satisfied to rely upon what my clients think I am. May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member and I are citizens of the city of Montreal in respect of which this matter has been considered. Since he has told this assembly that this case is so well documented, is he prepared on his own responsibility to go with me to Montreal tomorrow and lay a charge of perjury in the courts there?


An hon. Member:: Why should he?


Mr. Montgomery:: What have we a government for?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, a charge of perjury was made by the attorney in this case. He has come forward and said that he has evidence to support it. He has offered to lay it before the minister and the minister has refused to accept the evidence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I asked the hon. member a question. Answer my question.


William McLean Hamilton: am coming to that. The minister has refused to hear or consider this evidence. When the government of Canada reaches the point where it accepts its responsibilities, even its normal responsibilities, I will be the first person to go beyond my responsibilities, which is far more than I am required to do, and do what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George suggests. At the moment the responsibility lies on the government and not here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A question has been raised which requires an answer. The minister in the course of his defence, if I may dignify it' by that term, has said that some 58,000 certificates of citizenship are granted every year.
67509-460i
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said 58,000 were granted last year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Were granted last year, and that he could not possibly review them all. In so far as that may be urged as a defence, it becomes important for us to know just how many of these certificates were granted after an opposed application, because those are the only ones that the minister would be expected to investigate. We require an answer to that question in order that we may assess whether there is in fact any shadow of reason why the minister should not have investigated this case in spite of repeated requests that he do so. Is the minister prepared to tell us how many opposed applications for citizenship there were in the year 1955?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy to tell the hon. gentleman if I knew or if anyone else knew, but these cases are heard in county and district courts all over this country from coast to coast, and no statistics have ever been kept of the number that are opposed.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, oh. Foggier than ever.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whether or not the hon. gentleman says "oh, oh" in this sepulchral tone does not matter. A fact is a fact, and there are in fact, no statistics on this particular matter.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are we to assume that the judges of the county courts, in most cases, or the judges of these two special courts when they report to the minister do not say whether or not an application was opposed and, if it was opposed, what disposition was made of the application?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that at all. I said that no statistics had been kept on this point, because it never occurred to anybody until this evening that it was a point of any importance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest to the minister that no statistics exist as to the number of opposed applications because there probably has not been one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, yes, there have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How do you know there are if there are no statistics? You just told us there were no statistics.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I happen to know of two or three specific cases.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister knows of two or three specific cases. I assume then, Mr. Chairman, that where applications are opposed they come to the attention of the minister.
7250	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration If that is the case, and only two or three of them have come to his attention, is it not a fair inference that there have only been two or three opposed applications? If so, why does the minister not investigate? Is the minister prepared to come clean with the house and tell us how many opposed applications there have been?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I repeat, sir, that I do not know and neither does anybody else. It would no doubt be possible to go through the 58,000 cases if somebody wanted to do it and find out how many had been opposed, but I think it would be a shocking waste of the taxpayers' money and would serve no useful purpose whatsoever.
The objection to this case is a very simple one, and I think the bluff of the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace was completely called by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. This woman is charged with a crime. I am not a judge of the criminal courts, and until I am appointed a judge of the criminal courts I do not intend to hear cases that ought to go before the criminal courts. That, sir, really is all I can say. I can repeat it with variations, but that is all it is proper for me to say on this matter.


Leon David Crestohl: The Canadian Citizenship Act has a provision that covers the case raised in the house tonight thoroughly and completely. I should like to quote section 41, which is quite clear. It reads:
41. A person who
(a) for any of the purposes of this act knowingly makes any false representation or any statement false in a material particular ... is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for a term not exceeding three months.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the precaution was taken in the Canadian Citizenship Act that misrepresentations may be made in applications for citizenship, and if any citizen of Canada or anyone in Canada finds that a false representation has been made in an application for a certificate of citizenship he has the recourse laid down by this parliament, to apply for a warrant of arrest and prove the case before a competent court. Once perjury was established I think the minister would be duty bound to annul the citizenship certificate which he has granted. In this act there is provision for the minister to do precisely that.
I therefore respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that the question which the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace has raised may have some merit; I do not know. But if it


has, I say it is an abuse of the privileges of this house to bring this matter before parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Leon David Crestohl: It is completely out of place. It should have been brought before the courts. When a conviction is obtained, then of course the matter can be dealt with properly. But until a conviction is obtained under the provisions of the act, the entire matter is prematurely before this house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the hon. gentleman heard of a case with regard to infractions of the Immigration Act and other irregularities in that regard now in the courts in Montreal, in which this government, at great expense to the taxpayers of Canada, retained an eminent Liberal lawyer, namely Mr. F. Phillippe Brais, Q.C., as its counsel to investigate the case and, if it was found that charges should be laid, to lay the charges? That case is now before the courts in Montreal. That is the case where the government themselves -and there were civilians involved'-felt there had been infractions of the provisions of the Immigration Act as well as other wrongful conduct. They did not say to private citizens concerned, "You must go and lay charges". No, sir; they retained counsel at great expense.


Leon David Crestohl: I am astonished at the comparison. The cases are not comparable. In one case you had an offence committed by government officials.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this not a fraud on the government?


Leon David Crestohl: There was no allegation that any offence was committed by a government official for which the government should prosecute. The comparison the hon. member makes is completely out of place.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the other case there are civilians involved who are being proceeded against. The government did not wait until some civilian laid a charge. But here is the case of a criminal offence within the knowledge of the government if the minister cared to exercise his duties as minister and has heard what was going on.


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. gentleman must appreciate the fact that the minister has declared that in his opinion there is no perjury.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, the minister has not declared that at all.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister says he does not yet know whether or not there was perjury. He is not interested.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the minister might be allowed to say for himself what he said.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is exactly what he said.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister said he had no evidence of perjury.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has said that he is in a fog. He is not prepared to call the departmental officials to get him out of the fog, nor is he prepared to make the slightest effort to remove the curtain of fog which hangs over the whole thing. The only defence the government and its supporters can raise is to say that the House of Commons should not discuss it, that the matter should not have been brought to the attention of parliament and that private citizens, when they find themselves denied their rights in the courts, as this person was denied his rights -he is not a private citizen-with regard to a hearing and being represented by counsel, should make no complaint to parliament-


Leon David Crestohl: He is not a private citizen.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -but should accept the complete indifference of the minister to what is apparently one of the most flagrant violations of the provisions of the act that have come to our attention in many years.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to ask the minister a question. What is the duty of the officials of his department if they refuse to answer the questions that have been asked in this house tonight with respect to data that should be on file?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I do not quite comprehend the hon. gentleman's question.


An hon. Member:: Still in the fog.


Mr. Nesbiil:: Last year in the committee on estimates that was looking into this department, I believe the minister told us there was a good deal of information that was tabulated but not necessarily compiled. Possibly that might help the matter. But while I am on my feet there is one thing that I should like to ask the hon. member for Cartier, through you, Mr. Chairman. I listened with great interest to his observations on what has gone on this evening. I was rather curious to know what his observations would be as to why counsel for the person who is objecting to this citizenship being granted were refused permission to appear before the court, as was alleged.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Dinsdale:: I have a question that is related to this subject, and I think this is the appropriate point at which to present it to the minister. I was under the impression that there were rigid requirements which it was necessary to meet in order to obtain Canadian citizenship. I understand that one of those rigid requirements is five years in Canada as a landed immigrant.
I raised this question in connection with a matter that I brought to the minister's attention previously, namely the position of certain Polish veterans who have actually been in Canada for nine or ten years. Because they had not been established as landed immigrants, there could be no exception in their case. I have been listening to the evidence put forward in this case, and it would seem to me that there is more flexibility in the interpretation of the act than I had hitherto thought.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has perhaps forgotten or overlooked the fact that at this session we enacted an amendment to the citizenship act, which I had the greatest pleasure proposing, which enabled all those Polish veterans to count that time as part of their residence as though they had been landed immigrants, if they were here before 1949. I believe that practically all of them have now applied for citizenship, as well as quite a number of other people in similar circumstances. It was an unfortunate conjuncture of circumstances which I think we should all be pleased that parliament has rectified.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In this item 59, citizenship
registration branch, we are asked to vote some $398,265. We have asked a simple question of the minister. We have asked for information which the minister has said he cannot give but which his attitude would lead us to believe he prefers not to give. We feel that it is because of his desire not to give it rather than his inability to give it that the answer is refused.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, surely that is a breach of the rules of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the statistics-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am raising a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Surely the hon. gentleman's statement is a breach of the rules of the house.


An hon. Member:: What rule?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I made a statement. I understand that, according to the rules of the bouse, the hon. gentleman must accept my statement.
7252	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


William Earl Rowe: Oh, hardly.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, if the statistics on such an important matter are not available in this department and are not kept, that fact to our mind is evidence of such an appalling situation with regard to the administration of the department that it deserves the severest censure. The responsibility for that situation rests, of course, upon the minister of the department. However, there is not available to us in this house the old motion for the reduction of the minister's salary. Hence the only alternative to us is to move a reduction in the item in the department in regard to which the situation has arisen. I therefore move:
That item 59 be reduced to $1.
At the same time I wish to make it perfectly clear that this motion as presented is a motion of non-confidence in the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Needless to say, I oppose the motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Fulton) negatived: Yeas, 28; nays, 61.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall item 59
carry?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister seems to be operating in a self imposed fog. I suggest, sir, that his officials should be brought down on to the floor of the house. It is rather difficult for them to sit in the gallery and have to send out notes. I wish to ask the minister the following questions. What is the exact number of citizenship certificates that were granted last year? In how many cases were counsel denied the right to appear on behalf of interested parties before the citizenship courts? This is a serious situation, when a minister speaks with such complete disregard for judicial principles.
Counsel have a right to appear and petty officials have no right to deny them the right to appear. There is nothing more necessary in the administration of justice or in making sure that justice is properly administered than assuring that the rights of individuals shall not be subordinated to the desires of the administration; and nothing ensures that to a greater extent than that counsel be permitted to be present. It strikes me as a strange commentary on this department that when an individual appears before a court that individual is not allowed to have counsel;


the court is held behind closed doors, and a decision is made regarding a case that, on the face of it, looks suspicious.
This woman, with her desire for Canadian citizenship, travels all over the world while acquiring the period of residence. She has such warm-hearted co-operation from the department that there is an indication that there is something under the woodpile. It is an interesting case. So much is said about the fact that the solicitor should lay a charge of perjury, but the hon. member for Cartier has not answered the question which was directed to him, namely does he agree with the principle admitted here that counsel should be denied permission to be present?
The section in question, under the citizenship act, is for the punishment of fraud on the citizenship administration. The fraud that was committed was one which, once a strong suspicion was raised before the department, should have demanded action on the part of the department. For some reason this lady enjoys a solicitude for her citizenship that, even in the fogginess that prevails in this department, demands an explanation. I, therefore, ask the minister to let the committee have the information I have requested, for certainly if this is the regular practice it is time for a housecleaning in this department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman so befogs his own questions that I lost track of what specific information it was he was requesting. If he would just repeat the questions, without all the verbiage, I think I could give an answer right away.


William Earl Rowe: Now we are sure you are in a fog.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize the minister could not answer the charges I made, so I shall restrict my next statement to the two questions. How many cases of citizenship were there in Canada last year in which there was a grant of citizenship? In how many cases was citizenship denied, and in how many cases of contested citizenship were counsel denied the opportunity to appear before the court.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The number of certificates granted I have given about half a dozen times in round figures.


John George Diefenbaker: Not specifically, you have not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In precise figures there were 58,715. I do not think anyone can say the number that were not granted unless the hon. gentleman says what he means by "not granted". Does he mean where a judge

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
turned down the application or where the made a recommendation and the minister, for minister turned it down after the judge one reason or another, did not see fit to grant recommended it? What does he mean?	the certificate.


John George Diefenbaker: How many cases were turned down?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does he mean where the application was made and not proceeded with? There are a great many varieties of ways in which this question could be put. It would have to be more precise before a precise answer could be given.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister wants a
question-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would let me answer the question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You just said you could not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not completed the questions that were asked. The hon. gentleman has no doubt forgotten what they were, but I have not.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the kind of specious humbug with which the minister administers his department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The question asked was, how many cases there were in which counsel for the opposants were denied by judges access to the hearings. I do not conduct the hearings. The hearings are conducted in county courts and in various other places. I know of no such cases, but there may have been some. I hear the results from the judges, but I do not have charge of the proceedings.


William Earl Rowe: Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, can tell this committee how many cases came to his department's notice here in Ottawa, without going across Canada from Newfoundland to British Columbia. He could surely tell me how many were refused, and how many came to his attention here in Ottawa through this department. Surely you have a record of that, even though there is a lot of fog in this department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would be very easy to give that. The numbers that were refused after they were recommended by a judge, is that what the hon. gentleman means?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The number that were turned down?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, I could give very easily the number that were turned down by judges, because it is the recommendation of the judge that comes to me. I think I could, without much difficulty, indicate the number of cases in which a judge


Edmund Davie Fulton: How many were there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not the figure right under my hand.


Mr. Argue:: Send a messenger up to the gallery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to give that figure when we come to item 58, the departmental administration.


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. member for Prince Albert addressed a question rather directly to me which really touches the very root of civil liberties; that is, whether or not I would favour a procedure by which a person is denied the right to be represented by counsel. Certainly I would be the last one to support such a theory. However, I am afraid the hon. member has been making a case without taking note of what the law says on the subject, and that is quite unusual for him. We must realize under the citizenship act just what this court is. It is purely a hearing by a commissioner of citizenship. It is his personal inquiry, and the law declares precisely what that procedure should be. I quote from the Canadian Citizenship Act, section 28, on the question of filing an opposition to an application for naturalization, which is the problem we are now discussing. The section reads:
At any time after the filing of an application for a certificate of citizenship and previous to the hearing of the application, any person objecting to the granting of the certificate to the applicant may file in the court an opposition in which shall be stated the grounds of his objection.
Mr. Chairman, that is the section of the law enacted by this parliament which deals precisely with the problem before us this evening. It clearly states that an opposition may be filed before the hearing. That does not mean at the hearing; it must be filed in writing before the hearing and it must state the grounds of the objection.
I agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert that if this were a court of inquiry and counsel appeared they should be permitted to examine and cross-examine, but this commissioner's court is something that was established under the act as amended two years ago, I think, and it is purely a form of magistrate's inquiry. The commissioner is obliged to take cognizance of any written oppositions that are submitted to him. When the commissioner has collected the facts he studies them and then submits them to the minister for the minister's opinion and final decision.
It is a misnomer and it is misleading to give the impression that this is a regularly
7254	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration constituted court of law, where counsel have the right to appear and examine and crossexamine. That is not so under this law and I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that it is misleading to the people of Canada to give the impression that anyone has been denied the right to be represented by counsel in this case.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the resolution carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman. We have asked for certain information and I think we should have it before the item carries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I undertook that I would give to the hon. member for Prince Albert on item 58 the information he asked for and he agreed with that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I cannot agree with that, because there are certain other questions that arise out of this item. Other hon. members have an interest in the matter, and I think the hon. member for Prince Albert would be very glad indeed if the minister would give the answer now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to give it now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If that is so why did you not give it to the committee instead of asking if you could give it later? What is the minister trying to pull on this committee, anyway?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister either has the information or he does not, and if he has it why should he not give it to us when he is asked to instead of requesting permission to give it later? I will tell you why. The reason is that he knows other questions might arise out of it which he hopes to avoid by having the item carried; and if he thinks he can put the committee in the same fog he is in himself he is sadly mistaken.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall item 59 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Could we have the answer to the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps now that the hon. gentleman has blown off steam he may be able to sit quietly while I give the answer, which I am afraid is going to provoke another explosion from the hon. member because I am informed that we do not have a count of the number of cases that have been turned down; but I will have a count made tomorrow and I will undertake to give to the committee the count for the year 1955 of the number of cases the minister turned down
[Mr. Crestohl.l

after they were recommended by a judge. I shall give this information tomorrow. I might add that the number is not very great, but the information just is not available and I shall obtain it as quickly as it can be obtained.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would care to rise and report progress in order to give him a chance to get this information overnight?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think, sir, that would be a reasonable thing to ask. I am quite willing to let this item stand, if that will please the committee, and go on with the other items.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the wish of the committee that item 59 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am afraid I must point out to the committee that having called an item it can only stand with the unanimous consent of the committee. We do not have an adjournment of debate procedure in committee. Shall item 59 stand?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I take that in your judgment, Mr. Chairman, there is not unanimous consent to have it stand?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I thought I heard several "no's". I shall put the question again. Shall item 59 stand?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was suggested by the minister that it should stand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask my hon. friends in the house if they would agree to let this item stand?


Mr. Dufresne:: Get on the line, boys.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall item 59 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
58. Departmental administration, $500,150.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: That completes all the items listed under the department except No. 58 which I assume also stands.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if item 59 stands it will not be necessary to have item 58 stand, sir.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think provided it is understood there will be reasonable latitude for questions based on the information that will

be given to us tomorrow we could agree to carry this item; otherwise I would not agree to having item 58 carry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, certainly.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment to make concerning item 58. I do hope that will not provoke quite as embarrassing a situation for the minister as the last situation I drew to his attention.


An hon. Member:: Don't get too excited about yourself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nobody is excited about this hon. member.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace.


An hon. Member:: Let's go fishing.


William McLean Hamilton: This particular incident concerns the tendency of the department, once it gets its hands on documents or anything else of that nature, to hang on to them for an indefinite period of time without any regard to whether they have a moral, ethical or legal right to continue to hold those documents.
I have before me a case concerning a man who in the early years of the war, back in the period 1940 or 1941, was a seaman on a ship. This ship was taken into a Canadian port and this particular group of seamen were incarcerated as possible enemy aliens. At that time their documents were taken away from them and have been held in the department ever since. I am not going into the details of this case for fear of confusing the house, but this case has been batted back and forth by the department and I believe it is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. For the minister's information it concerns a Mr. Michael Magda.
The point I am making is this, and it is a very simple one. At no point in the evidence given before the supreme court and at no stage of the proceedings were Mr. Magda's passport or certain other travel documents entered as evidence, and they did not become the property of the court. They were retained in the possession of the minister.
Then we come to a point early in 1956 when Mr. Madga, through myself, comes to the minister and says, "I would like to have such of my documents back as you have in your possession." Perhaps I should be specific and say that this was to the director of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Mr. Magda said, "I would like to have my documents back. They have not been entered in evidence in court. They are in your possession. They are my documents. I am 67509-461
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration having some difficulty at times identifying myself, and I would like to have them back." Remember, the minister's department had had them for about 12 or 15 years. Here is a letter which came back signed by the acting director of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, W. R. Baskerville. It is dated May 1 and reads:
In the absence of the director I acknowledge your letter of April 24 last concerning the travel documents of Mr. Michael Magda, who is under an order of deportation in Canada.
While the contents of your letter have received every consideration, I can only repeat what Mr. Smith informed you previously. Mr. Magda's case is still before the courts, and there is always the possibility that these documents may be required in connection with the proceedings. It is, therefore, necessary that the department retain the documents for the time being to ensure that they will be immediately available if called for.
This particular individual through his counsel would have been prepared to give an undertaking to the minister that he would make the documents available. They were his documents; he needed them, but the minister sat on them like a chicken sitting on an egg. The only difference is that the chicken at least hatches the egg at the end of a few weeks or gets off the nest, whereas the minister and his departmental officials have insisted on sitting on these documents indefinitely and as far as can be seen into the future.
This is one isolated instance of many that are causing concern across this country. It is another clear-cut indication of the way this department is arrogating to itself rights and privileges which are not those of the government but which are those of the courts of Canada. Having placed this case before the committee I am going to suggest to the minister that he look into it immediately and see that these documents are returned to the gentleman in question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National gallery of Canada-
80. Administration, operation and maintenance, including industrial design division, $328,910.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I am going to resist the temptation to deal with any matters of policy with respect to the national gallery, though in the past I am afraid I have been painted as the arch enemy of the arts. I can assure the minister and certain officials of his department that such is not the case. However, I do feel that when large sums of public money have been spent on certain paintings, this whole matter of the policy of the national gallery should be looked into. Apparently other branches of the arts get nothing and I think it is safe to say that other branches of
7256	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the arts, the theatre and so on, are certainly deserving of as much consideration.
As I have said, this will be gone into at another time. I might mention that item 32 provides $25,000 for the construction of a permanent Canadian pavilion at Venice. Yet nothing is given to the Stratford festival to assist with their permanent theatre. Apparently it is thought better to give funds for an art pavilion in Venice albeit that is to be used to exhibit Canadian art.
I am going to confine my remarks before the hour of ten o'clock is reached to certain questions with respect to a group of paintings recently acquired from the Prince of Liechtenstein. Several questions have been asked from time to time about the cost of individual pictures. I realize it may be difficult to break down this cost, but I have spent the day trying to get an answer on this and I understand that the return has been prepared.
One of these paintings is by Chardin and is called "La Pourvoyeuse" and was purchased, according to my understanding, for about $150,000. Perhaps the minister could indicate before I continue whether that was the amount paid for Chardin's painting.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My impression was that it was a global amount for all four.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Do I understand there is no breakdown as to what each one cost?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is my impression, but I would like to check.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In a matter like this, when there has been so much controversy in the press and elsewhere, I would think the minister would be able to provide us with that figure, or could possibly get it from the director of the gallery who is not too far away.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I should prove to be wrong and if there was a specific price for each of these paintings I will have it in a moment, but my impression is that there was a global amount for the four.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In that case it may be that later on the answer can be given. With respect to this particular picture there is another question I should like to ask the minister. I made some inquiries when this matter was raised some months ago, and I found that the 18th century French artist Chardin was rather unusual in one respect in that if he liked a picture he painted it often. He had the habit of repeating a painting, possibly to improve on his first effort, though I am sure none of us could say now.


An hon. Member:: Lots of members repeat themselves.
[Mr. Nesfoitt.}


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This particular painter painted a number of pictures which were almost identical. I found on telegraphing the Louvre in Paris that they have an identical picture to this one, and I understand there is another one in Potsdam. I am not suggesting that Chardin could be compared with a lithographing machine or anything like that, as that would be improper; but I would like to find out just how many paintings there are which are almost identical to this one. Perhaps the minister can tell us that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like the hon. gentleman I have heard that Chardin had the habit of repeating some pictures. I think perhaps it would be flattering him almost too much to say that any two of them would be identical, but they were quite similar. One of those we bought had been duplicated. I had not heard that there were two like it, but I knew there was one very much like it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I base my information purely on the reply to my telegram to the Louvre in Paris, that they have one. There is a book called "Art Treasures of the Louvre" to be found in the parliamentary library, and I believe it is mentioned in that book that there is believed to be one in Potsdam. Unlike the minister I would be tempted to flatter Chardin, inasmuch as I compared the gallery picture with the plate of the one in the Louvre and while possibly they are not identical, they are certainly very close. However, the minister may be able to find out if there are any other pictures in existence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I presume that would be a matter of speculation after two and a half centuries, because we know some of these paintings have a habit of disappearing and re-appearing and sometimes the record of what a man has painted is not available. For example, I have never kept any statistics of my own paintings.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I hope they will never appear in the gallery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No danger.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My colleague has suggested that possibly none of the efforts of the minister will appear in the gallery.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can answer that other question. I was right; $850,000 was paid for the four pictures.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is no breakdown?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Then I must have been misinformed. There are two other specific questions I should like to ask the minister.

With regard to the pictures belonging to the national gallery which, I understand, are in storage on Echo Drive, it is my information -and I should be very pleased if the minister would correct me on this-that there are certain fire hazards at this storage place. I should like to inquire whether in the opinion of the minister he is satisfied that they are adequately protected and whether they are insured. I realize that naturally these pictures cannot be replaced and that the insurance would be only a small payment, but it has been brought to my attention that the building where these pictures are stored is not fireproof.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The information I have is that perhaps it is not quite perfect, but that it is considered to be adequate from the point of view of fire hazard. I think the national gallery follows the same rule as other branches of the government; that is to say, there is self-insurance.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Does the national gallery have in its possession any paintings by contemporary artists with respect to world war II? This is something that a number of people have inquired of me and I undertook to ask the question at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. gentleman knows, there were a number of artists employed by the Department of National Defence. I do not know offhand whether their paintings are actually part of the national gallery's collection or whether they are in the custody of the national gallery or what their present status is, but I could easily inquire and let the hon. member know.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If the minister will undertake to find out-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should know it but I do
not happen to.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is another matter. I see it is five minutes to ten, and I should like to get this cleared up. A few days ago, as the minister knows, I approached him with respect to representations I had received by letter and verbally from certain persons in the town of Tillsonburg, which happens to be in my constituency, with respect to certain alleged paintings that were in the possession of a Professor Bangarth, who is of Hungarian extraction, not as yet a Canadian citizen. He informed me that he had a certain number of paintings that I recognized-I hesitate to use the word any more in this respect-to be by well-known old masters such as Rubens, Rembrandt, Goya and Titian, among others.
Naturally any person who had representations such as these made to him would be very curious and possibly a little sceptical, but 67509-461J
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration as I say, it is not for me to judge. Possibly, like the minister, I am not a specific judge of art, and so I referred the matter to the minister, thinking that he would have officials of the gallery determine whether they were genuine and whether they could not be purchased as suitable for the gallery. In the London Free Press of August 2 there is a little news item reading as follows:
Ottawa, August 1-Canada's national gallery will investigate without delay the art treasures in the possession of Prof. Steven Bangarth, former Hungarian professor now resident in Tillsonburg.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, told the Free Press today that he was interested in the Bangarth old masters. He said he would have Alan Jarvis, director of the national gallery, or his assistant follow up the matter.
The minister said if the Bangarth paintings were genuine, and he had no reason to suppose otherwise, the gallery might be interested in acquiring some of them. He doubted that the gallery could have funds enough to acquire all of them.
On August 4, in the London Free Press again, we have this item:
Canada's national gallery indicated today it was "not interested" in the art treasures in the possession of Professor Steven Bangarth, former Hungarian professor of fine arts and now a resident of Tillsonburg.
Alan Jarvis, director of the national gallery, told the Free Press today that the gallery had seen the Bangarth paintings two or three years ago. As a consequence, the paintings were adjudged as not up to national gallery standards.
Mr. Jarvis said he had not seen the pictures personally, but the gallery's research staff had looked them over.
The gallery director said that he was not interested in the "old masters" reportedly in the possession of Prof. Bangarth and that he did not consider any further investigation necessary.
As I have already mentioned, it may well be that the pictures are not up to the calibre required by the government, but in view of the representations and letters I have had assuring me that these pictures are genuine and that the people are prepared to prove it, I should like to ask a certain number of questions of the minister, which are as follows. First, what were the names of the officials who saw these pictures? Second, what were the qualifications of the people who saw these pictures? What were the names of the pictures that were seen at that time? When were these pictures seen? I should also like to know whether any of these pictures that were seen by the officials of the gallery were merely photographs or some form of reproduction of the pictures, or were they the genuine article? I am only seeking information on this subject. In view of the representations I have had made to me, I do not feel that in the circumstances I could do very much else.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should be very glad to get that information for the hon. gentleman.

Supply-National Film Board I understand that the hon. gentleman himself spoke to the London Free Press either before he gave the letter to me, or at the time he did, and the reporter asked me about it and I said I had told the hon. gentleman that I would ask the national gallery to look into the matter. The report in the London Free Press about that was correct. When I got in touch with the director he told me that they had a very large file on this subject, but they had been considering this matter over a period of some two years, and that, as he indicated in his statement, they were not pictures the gallery was interested in. I do not happen to know the names of the particular people, but I should be glad to get that information.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of that, I should like to have this matter stand, because there are a number of questions I would wish to ask that would be determined by the minister's reply to the questions I have already asked.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we could deal with the other items on the national gallery and let item 80 stand.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the desire of the committee that item 80 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Item stands.
National film board-
241. Administration, production and distribution of films and other visual materials, $3,351,859.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think it is rather important that we get some information on the activities of the national film board at this particular time, because this is the year the film board has been making the transfer to its new headquarters in the city of Montreal. I notice in the estimates that we have an item of some $1 million which covers the expenses involved in this transfer.
As I understand it, the national film board was established in 1939 mainly to carry out an educational role or, as the reports from time to time have described its function, for the purpose of production and distribution of films in the national interest. I believe that its role is essentially educational and that conclusion, I would suggest, is backed up by the fact that the commissioner for the national film board is an outstanding educationist. I think the choice of a man with that background would suggest that the purpose behind the establishment and the continued operation of the national film board is educational.
This, of course, is an unusual function for a federal body, because the federal jurisdiction usually does not concern itself with educational matters. But I think the money


expended in the production and distribution of films for this purpose is making a very worth while and substantial contribution to the over-all educational function.
If the minister is going to make any comments, I think perhaps I would present that as my first question. Am I right in concluding that the function of the national film board is mainly an educational function? Shall I present a series of questions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact I am really better satisfied with the definitions that are in the National Film Act.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am asking that for a reason that I shall indicate as I proceed with my observations. More recently the film board has been making a wider international contact, and here again I would agree that it is carrying out an important function. For example, I had a personal contact with the film board office in the city of New York last fall, and I discovered that its films were being used by the Ford television program "Omnibus" which has an audience of some 20 million viewers. If that function is being carried out on a proportionate basis in other countries I think it indicates that the national film board is more than justifying its existence. Again, I should like the minister to give us some idea of the current or expanding activities in this regard. I imagine that there again the function is educational and also promotional, from the standpoint of encouraging tourist interest in Canada, and that would appear to me to be a legitimate function of the film board.
According to the detailed items in the estimates the national film board is moving into the new medium of television at a very rapid rate, and on page 344 we have an item of some $341,000 that will be voted for the production of films for television during the current fiscal year. I am wondering whether this suggests that there is a tendency on the part of the film board to abandon its primary role of an educational operation, and whether in view of the demand for television films there might not be a tendency to commercialize the activities of the board.
As I understand the act and the original purpose of establishing the national film board, it was in no way intended to provide a commercial operation. Yet with the rapidly increasing appropriate for television films it would appear that it might be moving into this commercial activity because of the sheer weight of the demand. I do not have the figures before me, but I understand that commercial film activities in this country have been growing at an astounding rate since C.B.C. television went on the air. It would seem to me that rather than compete with

this very worth-while development in the realm of private activity, it might be advisable to allow the private activity to grow in response to the commercial demand and maintain the essential function of the national film board, namely the educational role.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps I might just interrupt the hon. gentleman to read him the purposes that parliament gave the national film board, because I would not like anyone to take my silence as assenting to his proposition that the primary function of the film board is educational in any constitutional sense of the word. This is what the act says:
The board is established to initiate and promote the production and distribution of films In the national interest and in particular
(a) to produce and distribute and to promote the production and distribution of films designed to interpret Canada to Canadians and to other nations . . .
That is the first of the purposes. I do not think I need to read the others. It does seem to me that as between showing films in theatres, showing films in community halls and that sort of place and showing them on television, all these are ways of exhibiting that can accomplish that same purpose.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Quite.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Incidentally, I should add that there is nothing commercial about our television operations. I wish they were more commercial than, in fact, they are.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think the minister has suggested that the national film board is tending to move into the lucrative field of television and theatrical showings more than was originally intended, and that is the impression I got from the information that was available.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course when the film board was set up there was no television, so that could not have been originally intended.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: And the film board was set up originally, of course, largely in response to wartime demands for additional information concerning Canada at war. It seems to me that in moving more and more into the commercial phase of films-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really must deprecate that term. There is nothing commercial about it. The national film board films shown on the C.B.C. are not fully paid for by the C.B.C., so there is nothing that, by the widest stretch of the imagination, can be considered commercial about them. This is just taking advantage of one way of getting these films, the purpose of which is to interpret Canada to Canadians, before Canadians; and I might add that, in spite of the television activity,
Supply-National Film Board the non-theatrical distribution of films last year in Canada was before a total audience of 14,500,000 people. That does not mean 14,500,000 different individuals. The figure is computed in the way they compute the number of people who ride on street cars.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Maybe the word I am using, commercialization, is an unfortunate word, but I repeat my opening remarks that the national film board was established as a government film agency largely to carry out the educational and cultural role to which the minister has referred in reading the definition in the act. I mentioned also at the outset that this is a significant year in the activities of the film board because it is moving to its new $5 million plant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has moved.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It has moved to its new $5 million plant in the city of Montreal. I have not had the opportunity to see the facilities, but perhaps that will come at some time in the future when a parliamentary committee is reviewing in detail the operations of the film board. But I imagine that a plant costing that sum of money is capable of producing a fairly substantial quantity of films. I am wondering whether the expansion into this new larger plant facility is an indication that the national film board is going to increasingly extend its activities in the general field of film production.
I raise that point, Mr. Chairman, because there is always a danger in state-operated mass media services. I am sure the commissioner of the national film board, who is an educationalist and who takes the philosophic approach to these things, is quite aware of the danger of an expanding state operation in the field of public information of any kind. In fact, in a speech to a Canadian club audience in London, Ontario last February Dr. Trueman warned the citizens to whom he was speaking that they should be wary of government agencies such as the film board because, as he said:
... it is perfectly possible to use such an agency for propaganda purposes.
Then Dr. Trueman carried on as follows:
I have never seen any indication that this would happen, but it could, and it's a private citizen's democratic responsibility to keep an eye on it.
That is quite a legitimate observation, and I am making it not as a private citizen but as a member of this house. I just wonder whether it is possible to stop the expansion of this public information film service under the direction of the state. It has very wide implications. I am merely expressing this warning or perhaps this hope that there will be no attempt by state-subsidized public

Supply-National Film Board information film services to compete with the healthy and thriving film industry that is emerging in response to the new demands for film for television services.
Before I conclude my observations on this subject, may I say that I have been reading through the 1954-55 report and that it seems to me there is a great deal of what I might call cultural inbreeding in the members of the board. I am wondering whether this is a healthy sign.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is that a tribute to Mr. Bruce Hutchison?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am wondering whether this is a further sign that there is not a sufficiently broad control of the activities of the national film board. For example, there are four senior members of various government departments serving on the national film board.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course the hon. gentleman realizes that this is required by the statute.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is fine. I am just making the observation that there are four senior officials out of a total membership of nine, including the commissioner. It is therefore a fairly broad representation from government departments. I am not acquainted with the members of the board other than the editor of the Victoria Daily Times, Mr. Bruce Hutchison. I suppose he is there because of his wide contributions in the field of Canadian letters, particularly in the area of popular history.


An hon. Member:: He is a Liberal.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is he a Liberal? I did not know that. The representation from western Canada includes a lady from Saskatoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The lady from Saskatoon is no longer there. A lady from Winnipeg has taken the place of the lady from Saskatoon.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is good. That answers a query that I was going to raise. I was surprised that there was no representation from the city of Winnipeg. We westerners feel that Winnipeg is rapidly becoming the cultural centre of Canada, if it has not already achieved that position. I am not speaking merely from a parochial viewpoint when I say that. We have concrete cultural activities which would tend to back up the point I am making.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The chairman has already had quite an acquaintance with Winnipeg.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. The minister will recall that at the time the great exodus from Ottawa


was contemplated, certain representations were made to the effect that Winnipeg would be the logical and ideal centre because there you have the two cultures, the two languages and so forth, and you also have the western viewpoint which we feel is the real spirit of the new Canada. Unfortunately, because of the geographic location of this important government information activity, there is a tendency to neglect the western regions.
I was glad to hear the minister's reply that an appointment has been made from Winnipeg. I trust that appointment will help to even out the balance in this regard considerably.
In reading the report I was surprised to discover that there was on the board no representatives from the Canadian film society. The Canadian film society was established prior to the national film board. In fact it was what you might call the pioneering group in this particular field of public information in Canada. It was established in 1935 by a group of private citizens. It has continued its operations in the field of film distribution. I myself have had contact with them down through the years.
As far as my own personal experience with them is concerned, I feel that they are the group most qualified to advise and assist in the whole field of film production and distribution in Canada. I think some representation from this important group, which is still functioning as a private society, might help to avoid the danger that is always present when the government is operating in the field of mass media communication, and where it tries to use this media for its own propaganda purposes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to hold up the committee for more than two minutes, but I should like to bring one thing to the minister's attention with regard to a very eminent Canadian in the province of Ontario. A judge in our country by the name of Eric Cross has written an excellent play called "The Patriots". It deals with the history of this country at the time of Baldwin and Lafontaine. That play has been presented by the London little theatre, Queen's University, and the Woodstock little theatre, and I know it is being considered by others. This play is also required reading in the schools of Ontario. His Honour Judge Cross is an excellent historian and an excellent playwright. He spent a great deal of time in preparing this play. I might say that Judge Cross was formerly the attorney general of the province of Ontario, was minister of education of Ontario for a while, and also minister of municipal affairs.
Mr. Chairman, I may not be much of a judge of painting, but I consider that I have

some slight knowledge and appreciation of the theatre. I might say that this play by any standards, either from the historical point of view or from the straight theatre point of view, would be difficult to improve upon. I would rather hope that perhaps the minister might consider sending instructions to the national film board that they might consider this play as a subject to be filmed for use in Canadian schools or something of that nature. The very fact the province of Ontario has made this play required reading is, I think, a recommendation in itself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be delighted to draw that fact to the attention of the film board and ask them to give it most careful consideration.


William McLean Hamilton: Like Sergeant Friday in "Dragnet" I should like a little bit of information. Can the minister tell the committee what would be the total cost of the new building and equipment in Montreal?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have it right here. The amount provided from the funds of the national film board for the purchase of new equipment and the relocation of existing equipment was $1,446,503, over the period from the time this move started to the present. The amount for the Ottawa headquarters was $21,632; for technical services to overcome shut-downs, $114,554; for the removal of staff-that does not come directly within the question, but perhaps the hon. member might want all the information- $202,905; for recruiting, training, travelling and other expenses, $123,186, making a total cost of the move to the film board of $1,908,780.


William McLean Hamilton: The
minister is doing marvellously with his second sight because that was my second question, the total cost of the move to Montreal. He has answered that, although I have not put the question. My first question was the total cost of the new building and equipment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid, sir, it would perhaps be inappropriate for me to transgress on the field of another minister. My department did not build the building, but I am told that the total cost-it is not quite complete in every detail-and since this is a public works figure I do not guarantee it, but that the total cost including furniture, fixtures, purchase of the site and public works share of the move was $6,400,000; that is approximate, but it is very close.
Supply-National Film Board


William McLean Hamilton: That is very kind of the minister and I appreciate it. Has he any idea of the increase in the cost of administration because of this new building? I have in mind such things as maintenance; the necessity for separate Ottawa offices; the necessity to travel between the two cities and the necessity, for example, to have a number of new positions such as, I understand, a new deputy commissioner, which post has been or will be created. Can he estimate those additional costs?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The apparent cost, as the hon. gentleman will realize, is considerably greater than the real additional cost, for this reason. In Ottawa certain services are provided by public works and by the Department of Finance, such as telephones, caretakers, cleaners and so on, which have to be provided by the film board in Montreal. The figure I am given of the estimated total increased cost for 1956-57 as a result of the move and the fact that there are two offices would be $97,929, that is to say very nearly $100,000.	1 want to emphasize again that
some of this is only an apparent increase.


William McLean Hamilton: The
figure of $97,000 is a very real one, though, to some of us taxpayers. Can the minister tell the house if the government has taken into consideration the recent United Kingdom experience, where they have closed down, I understand, the British equivalent to the national film board, their production division known as Crown Films? I am wondering if he knows of that and if it might have some reflection on the operations of this national film board. Has he studied that British policy?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the
Crown Films unit, to which I presume the hon. gentleman refers, was closed several years before I became minister in charge of this board. I have no doubt my predecessor did take account of any experience the United Kingdom government may have had as a result.


William McLean Hamilton: Can
the minister tell us whether the commissioner of the film board is now going to reside in Ottawa? If so, how much time will he spend in Montreal where the operation is centralized?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be premature-the commissioner is going to reside in Ottawa, and unfortunately he is going to spend a large amount of time travelling, from what he has already told me, though I hope once things get running more smoothly he

Supply-National Film Board can reduce this a little and spend more time keeping the minister informed about what is happening. There are going to be certain difficulties about this which were thoroughly appreciated by the government at the time the decision was made. I do not think it will be possible to say even approximately the amount of time the commissioner will have to spend in Montreal until there has been several months or perhaps a year's experience in that operation.


William McLean Hamilton: Does the minister still feel the move to Montreal is justified, in view of the fact that all the film board customers are in Ottawa and the commissioner himself is residing in Ottawa?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to reserve my answer to that question until a year from now or, I hope, something less than a year from now, when we have had a little more experience on which I could base it. My feeling would be that it is, but I think it would be rather presumptuous of me to express an opinion before we have had a little more experience.


William McLean Hamilton: Can
the minister tell us what per cent of the board's production last year was for C.B.C. account, either in dollars or in number of feet?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is somewhere between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the total production costs.


William McLean Hamilton: So
in the past year between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the national film board production costs were for C.B.C.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: But that does not mean that proportion of the budget went for that, because some of that cost was recovered from the C.B.C.


William McLean Hamilton: Do
I understand that you do not recover the full costs from C.B.C.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


William McLean Hamilton: I do
not want to get into a long discussion on this national film board, but to a certain extent it is subsidizing certain aspects of C.B.C. operations?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That would be one way to describe it, and I will not quarrel with the term.


William McLean Hamilton: Can
the minister tell us, looking ahead to next year, what per cent of their production they would expect would be for the C.B.C. on the same basis as last year?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Roughly about the same, but that will be subject to audit later. That is the present expectation. Incidentally I might add, and I think the hon. gentleman will be interested, that the amount provided for the film board for production has not been increased this year over last year or last year over the previous year.


William McLean Hamilton: My
final question on this score, Mr. Chairman, is whether the minister would like to comment on what the government's thinking might be about the future relationship between the national film board and the C.B.C.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be most undesirable for me to do so at this time. I am very hopeful that one of the things that will be considered by the Fowler commission is the relationship between these two agencies. I would not wish to express views here which might in any way seem to prejudge that question. I think there are some problems in this area that need to be solved.


William McLean Hamilton: can understand why the minister finds it difficult to comment at this point but in view of his hesitation to comment would he say whether or not he approves of the present policy under which the national film board is doing work for the C.B.C. at less than cost in some cases?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, sir, that is a really embarrassing question. I have the responsibility to parliament for the film board and I would love to have the full cost paid by the C.B.C., but I do not know whether I can persuade my colleague the Minister of National Revenue to persuade the C.B.C. to do it. This is precisely one of those problems on which some further thinking needs to be done.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, may I just point out to the minister how much more easily we got along this time when he had his officials sitting in front of him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister realizes his own limitations.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take just about one minute to tell the minister and the committee of an experience that several hon. members, along with the distinguished Clerk of this house had in touring South Africa two years ago next month. One sunny morning about 25 miles outside of Capetown when driving along the seacoast on the beautiful Cape peninsula we stopped at an inn. Outside was a board advertising the showing of certain films the following day in a community hall

nearby. On the delighted eyes of these Canadians, 14,000 miles from home, fell these Canadian titles:	"The Loon's Necklace,"
"Barbara Ann Scott", "The Mounties get their Man". These were three films distributed by the national film board.
On inquiry we were told that the films of the national film board have a very large circulation in South Africa. That circulation has been promoted actively, I know, by the Canadian trade commissioner at Capetown.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman very much. Those films are all excellent, as he and I both know.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in all fairness to the private film industry of Canada may I point out that "The Loon's Necklace" at least is not a production of the national film board but of one of the great private producers in Canada which has a distinguished reputation, Crawley Films Limited.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am delighted the hon. member has pointed that out, because one of the principal objects of the national film board is to promote and encourage the private film industry in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National film board-
653. To provide for the dismantling, conversion and installation of existing equipment, acquisition of new equipment, removal expenses and other costs related to the transfer of the national film board to new building-further amount required, $68,800.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it expected that this will be the final item for the cost of the transfer?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There may be some very small items.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But to all intents and purposes this closes the account?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is our hope and expectation, except for some trifling amounts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public archives-
529. To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of producing, processing or dealing in microfilm, the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $27,500.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall this item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Wait a moment.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Except for the two
items which have been allowed to stand, Nos. 59 and 80, that completes-
Supply-Public Archives


Edmund Davie Fulton: Wait a moment, Mr. Chairman. You carried item 529 before we could possibly get the page turned.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I consider it uncarried?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this new?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman would tell me what page it is on-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Page 84.


An hon. Member:: The chairman is too fast even for the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am experiencing just as much difficulty as the hon. member for Kamloops in finding the page.
The purpose of this fund is to provide for the operation of the central microfilming unit which was transferred on April 1, 1956, from the printing bureau to the archives. It is located out in the new building-whatever that building is called-in Tunney's Pasture. I cannot think of the name of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The archives building.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the new public records building. The purpose of this revolving fund is to pay the costs which are later recovered. It is a service unit for other government departments and the cost is later recovered from other departments. Departmental records are transferred there. Some of them are microfilmed and then destroyed. That is what this is for, and this is new.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then it is new so far as its appearance under public archives is concerned, I take it, but was it formerly reflected in the accounts or the estimates of other departments?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is my understanding. It does not represent any expenditure at all. This is just a sum of money which we think is adequate to pay the bills and which will be recovered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall I report the resolutions concurred in today and ask leave to sit again?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Where is trade and commerce?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, there must have been some regrettable misunderstanding that hon. members were not prepared to go on after these items were carried. We would be glad to go on with the Department of Fisheries; I think my colleague is here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think we are prepared for that department because we expected

Supply-Transport
we would go on with trade and commerce and my neighbour, our fisheries expert, is not here.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us do something.


Walter Edward Harris: As I say, somehow or other the impression got abroad that my hon. friends were not prepared to go on with anything other than this after ten o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not understand that at all. I expected to be speaking on trade and commerce estimates, and I have been sitting here waiting for the last hour and a half with my papers.


George Harris Hees: Let us do trade and commerce.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let us do transport.


Mr. Lesage:: Yes, let us finish transport.


William Earl Rowe: You had better call it 11 o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: There does appear to be agreement that we proceed with transport.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I did not hear the last remark of the Minister of Finance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Transport.


George Harris Hees: When did you get the promotion, Jack?


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Chairman, all our files on transport are upstairs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, let us adjourn.


Walter Edward Harris: We will wait until you come down with your papers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Good. Let us finish transport.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
436. The St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers-Canadian section, $180,180.
Howard Charles Green: This item has to do with the St. Lawrence seaway project. The other night when the estimates were up the minister promised that he would deal with a question asked by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace under the St. Lawrence seaway item.


Mr. Marler:: I certainly do not want to avoid fulfilling my commitment to the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace, but I suggest that this is not the appropriate item. This item deals with the St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers, Canadian section. The function of this board is to supervise work in connection with power development on the seaway and the St. Lawrence. The subject which the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace wishes to discuss would come under loans and advances for the seaway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canal services-
437. Administration, $137,030.
Mr. Vincent:: Has the minister given any consideration to bringing the administration of all canals under the seaway authority?


George Carlyle Marler: It will probably not be until the navigation year 1959 that the seaway will be open for shipping and the question of the administration of the canal system generally would not arise. I can tell my hon. friend that there is a provision in the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act whereby the governor in council may transfer the administration of canals which are contributory to the seaway system to the authority. As the hon. gentleman probably knows, there are canals which would not fall into that category and which are under the administration of the Department of Transport. In my opinion it is desirable that the whole attention of the St. Lawrence seaway authority should be devoted to the seaway itself and not to what might be considered problems of administration.


Auguste Vincent: I am referring to the canals which will provide a link between the great lakes and the ocean. There will be ships of foreign registry plying the inland waters, and since we are endeavouring to remove all obstacles to ships travelling from the ocean to the head of the lakes I think we should try to streamline the administration and have foreign and Canadian vessels come under the one authority. While this may not be the time to discuss the matter I am wondering if any thought has been given to it. I think this would be the proper solution for traffic over our inland waters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
440. Marine services administration, including agencies, $670,240.
Howard Charles Green: I understand that this is the item under which the search and rescue service is provided. Could the minister tell us the present situation with regard to that service?


George Carlyle Marler: For some reason or other which has always puzzled me when anybody mentions the subject of search and rescue he always seems to direct his attention to me. While I may be flattered by the attention I get in this way, the fact does remain that this is the primary responsibility of the Department of National Defence and the co-ordination is carried out by the Department of National Defence.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra knows, the facilities of all departments which operate sea-going vessels are

part and parcel of the search and rescue organization. We have a number of ships, and I suppose for that reason when the subject of search and rescue is mentioned everybody looks to the Department of Transport and seems to imply that the problem of search and rescue is exclusively one of transport. I do not think that is the situation as search and rescue is organized at the present time. All we do is play our part in providing ships where agency vessels may be used in the process, and also to facilitate the problem of communications.
I think the hon. member is fully aware of the situation as to search and rescue generally, and I do not think I can say anything more on this particular item than that our departmental vessels are available when they can be of service.


Howard Charles Green: Which department has the primary responsibility for the operation and extension of this service? Surely there must be one department of government which has that responsibility. Somebody has to be in charge; the Minister of National Defence or some minister must be responsible for the planning and extension of this service. As the minister knows, it has been in operation for only a short time and improvements will have to be made as the years go by. I suggest that some minister should be given this responsibility. It is quite true that there are several departments co-operating, but somebody should be the leader.
I have suggested that a proper coastguard service should be established, but the government has rejected that plan for this search and rescue plan. What I am concerned about is who is the responsible minister for seeing that this becomes a thoroughly efficient service. I do not think it is wise to have it under four or five different ministers.


George Carlyle Marler: I thought in my remarks a moment ago I had said plainly that the primary responsibility rested on the Department of National Defence. As the hon. gentleman knows, I think, that department co-ordinates the search and rescue activities of the navy, when the navy can be of assistance, and the air force and all the various other departments, and of the ships which may be somewhere in the vicinity of the need and which may respond to it, but the responsibility for co-ordination and correction, as I understand it, rests with the Department of National Defence.


Howard Charles Green: Are there any plans in mind for the extension of this service?


George Carlyle Marler: I think that would have been a good question for the hon. member to put to the Minister of National Defence when
Supply-Transport
his estimates were under consideration. I can only speak insofar as my own department is concerned. I shall say to the hon. member that we have been considering whether in the design of our agency vessels we can make some changes which would make them better suited for carrying out search and rescue operations where it is possible to do so.
The hon. member mentioned the subject of coastguards. He is probably fully familiar with the situation in the United States, but those who are continually preaching the idea of a Canadian coastguard on the lines of the United States coastguard must remember that the United States spends something of the order of $125 million a year just for this coastguard service. They carry out a number of functions that are carried out in Canada by various departments. For example, as I understand the origin of the United States coastguard, it was designed primarily for revenue purposes, to control smuggling. That is not a function now of the Department of Transport; it is carried out by the R.C.M.P. The question of the supply of buoys, the sort of work that is carried out through marine service for the Department of Transport, is likewise done by the United States coastguard. They go in for icebreaking, as we do. They have some of the functions of the Department of Transport, some of the R.C.M.P. and some of other departments. What is perhaps unfortunate is that it is difficult for any single individual to specify all the single services of any one department which it might be described as those of a coastguard.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any civil servant who has the responsibility for heading up the search and rescue service, or is it merely a matter of co-operation among the departments?


George Carlyle Marler: That is a question the hon. member should have put on the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Howard Charles Green: There is no vote under the Department of National Defence for a search and rescue service as such. Does the minister not think it would be advantageous to organize this service in such a way that it would come under the direction of some particular minister and some particular deputy?


George Carlyle Marler: I hope the hon. gentleman does not ask me to repeat what I have already said twice; that is, that the primary responsibility rests under the Department of National Defence. I have 95 or 96 items in my budget and I am quite prepared to deal with those,

Supply-Transport
but I do not wish to add the items of the Department of National Defence to the 95 I already have.


George Clyde Nowlan: May I say this in supplementing what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has just said. The minister tells us that questions with respect to the coastguard or search and rescue should have been asked in connection with the Department of National Defence.


George Carlyle Marler: I am saying rescue, not coastguard.


George Clyde Nowlan: As the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra has said, there is no item in the defence estimates where we could have possibly asked that question. This is a matter I have raised for many years, and I must say that the present minister is much more modest than his predecessor, because his predecessor at one time took the responsibility for the fact that he was co-ordinating all the ships of his department and those of national defence and fisheries into what he said was equal to, if not better than, the coastguard service of the United States.
Those of us from the eastern seaboard, at any rate, have been much concerned about this for many years. There have been cases where the minister, if he looks back or has some of his staff go back through the debates in Hansard on this matter in years gone by, will find that this was raised. I have spent considerable time and given instance after instance where a coastguard service would have been of incalculable value.
Now we have a situation where the minister says, perhaps rightly, he has a great many items, but he has no item here for a coastguard. After all he is the Minister of Transport. His predecessors at any rate took some responsibility in this matter. We know that search and rescue operations were carried out by the air force operating out of Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and nowhere was there a more efficient search and rescue operation carried on than by the air force. But the air force cannot cover the whole field expected of a coastguard service. You cannot land planes in rough water, and so on. We saw an example in the recent disaster when the Andrea Doria collided with the Swedish ship. The United States coastguard was co-ordinating the rescue services, although the French liner and others took a primary part in it.
On the east coast we have had casualty after casualty over a period of many years. We thought at least there would be some co-ordination in dealing with the various services. The minister says it comes under

the Department of National Defence, and apparently we should have asked the question of the Minister of National Defence about that. I say that the place to ask the question is on the estimates of the Minister of Transport, who at least in so far as his department is concerned three years ago took full responsibility for the way in which this should be handled and co-ordinated. He laughed to scorn those of us who said that there should be a coastguard service, and he said we had operating in co-ordination with the Department of National Defence a much more efficient service, or so he implied, than was operated by the coastguard service in the United States. I am not satisfied with this brush-off, and I say that with respect.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I think, wanted to speak to the point of order, shall we say, that was raised.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have no great desire to speak on the subject that was raised, but I am interested in this question of search and rescue. I must say that I agree with the minister in part as to the question of search and rescue being under the Department of National Defence. Whilst there is not a specific item, there is a heading in the national defence estimates covering a vote of some $4 million.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Nevertheless, perhaps part of this misunderstanding may arise out of the fact that historically, certainly on the British Columbia coast, marine rescue as such is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. The minister was talking about departmental vessels which service lighthouses.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, particularly as I invited him to speak, but several members are drawing to my attention the fact that it is now more than an hour past ten o'clock. It might be of some slight assistance to the committee, before this item is resumed, if I point out that I have not the Hansard before me but I have my marked copy of the estimates. There was a heading of search and rescue called for discussion-it was No. 14 under the Department of National Defence and will be found on page 338 of the details -when we were calling the headings. I do not pretend to remember how general the discussion was, but it is my view that it was fairly general.
I think I might say at this time what I said on a somewhat similar point of order, that I do not think the discussion of the subject, in so far as it applies to the vessels and the

responsibilities of the Department of Transport, can be ruled out of order; but a minister cannot be compelled to answer questions when he says it is not within his competence to answer.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out that the item to which you have referred is Royal Canadian Air Force, search and rescue.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I remember that.


Howard Charles Green: That has nothing to do with vessels.


George Carlyle Marler: That is the very thing we are talking about.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I remember that. I do not want to be in the position of debat-
Supply-Transport ing, and I am not trying to. I think it will be found that there was a fairly general discussion but I have not Hansard before me.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall start with the estimates of trade and commerce and then take privy council.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Bell: 1.	How many bankruptcies have taken place to date in connection with the Camp Gagetown construction in New Brunswick?
2.	How many contracts have been changed due to bankruptcies?
3.	What guarantee is given that a subcontractor can carry out his contract?
4.	What provision is made to ensure that subcontractors are paid?
5.	Has any high sheriff of New Brunswick been refused the right to carry out his official duties in the army camp?
6.	If so, for what reason, and what protection exists for a citizen to recover his property?
Answer by. Mr. Dickey, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Defence Production:
1.	Two.
2.	None.
3.	None.
4.	A statutory declaration is obtained from the prime cdhtractor accompanying his second progress claim and all subsequent claims stating that all the subcontractors, labour and accounts for material entering into the construction portion of the work as set forth in the previous claim have been duly paid.
5.	Yes, on one occasion.
6.	Following the bankruptcy of a subcontractor, a high sheriff of New Brunswick gave 24 hours' notice that he intended to replevy certain goods from the premises of Camp Gagetown. Since payment had already been made to the prime contractor for the goods in question, an interim injunction was obtained on behalf of this contractor in order to examine the situation before the goods were removed from the army camp. Subsequently, upon the issuance of a writ claiming a declaration that a supplier held title to certain goods delivered to the site and that it was entitled to revendicate the said goods, the interim injunction was permitted to lapse. Legal action is now pending to determine title to the goods in question, and the recovery of the goods will depend upon the decision of the court.


POST OFFICE BUILDING, ST. THOMAS, ONT.
Mr. McBain: 1.	When will tenders be called on the new St. Thomas, Ontario, post office or public building?
2.	Have temporary quarters been leased for the Post Office Department?
3.	If not, by what date will temporary quarters be required?
Answer by: Mr. Bourget, Parliamentary Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Not known. There are still matters to be settled in connection with the site.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


AIRPORT, NISKU, ALTA.  PROPOSED LOCATION
Mr. Holowach: 1.	Has the government or any agencies thereof received any submissions or resolutions from anyone protesting the location of the proposed airport near Nisku, Alberta?
2.	If so. from whom?
3.	What are the legal descriptions of land acquired for this project?
4.	What are the names and addresses of persons whose land is affected?
5.	What is the total amount paid to date for these properties?
6.	How many properties are still to be purchased and at what estimated cost?
7.	Have any tenders been called or contracts awarded for construction of this airport?
8.	When is it planned actual construction will commence?
Answer by:	Mr. Langlois, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3 and 4. As stated in answer to parts 5 and 6, no properties have yet been actually acquired. Parcels of land expected to be acquired and names of owners are as follows:
Parts of sections 2, 11, 14 and 23 west of highway No. 2; sections 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 22; N.E. | of 5; E. | of 8 and the S.E. { of 20; all being in township 50, range 25, west of the 4th meridian.
Fred Hannas, Teofan Pyrcz, Bessie Haryniuk, Steve Pyrcz, Alexander P. Dub-lenlco, Herbert Leo Matter, Theodore Leo William Matter, Emil Filan, Nick Yaremko, Nicholas Yaremko, Julius Breitkreitz, A. Cameron McKenzie, Emanuel L. Neiman, John Czuroski, Edward Schneider, Harry Richard Yaremko, Harry Hammermaster, Joseph Gola, Albert Kuhn, Nellie Czurowski, Martin Shavenko, Harry Fedor, Oscar Lechelt, Roderick Oliver Johnston, Mabel Johnston, Michael Forester, Karl Tarka, Antonio Chymera, Antone Chemera, William Bieder-man, Charlie Gramms, William Wedman, Herman Kuhnert, Gotlieb Kopf, Otto Herman and Florence Glasere, William Prysko, Elmer William Stack, William Stebner, Herman Schneider, Robert Hickey, Wilfred Hickey, John David Pogue, George Hickey, Archie Arthur Crosley, Tony Crosley, Leo David Crosley.
5 and 6. Expropriation plan is in process of being registered and no properties have been acquired or paid for.
7.	No.

Supply
8.	As stated by the Minister of Transport in Edmonton on October 24, 1955, construction of the airport is expected to start in 1957.


CABOT TRAIL-HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Mr. Buchanan: 1.	To whom have contracts been awarded since April 1, 1956, for highway work on the Cabot trail?
2.	What amounts of money are involved; what is the nature of the work, and the mileage concerned?
Answer by:	Mr. Bourgel, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1 and 2. Two contracts were awarded to the Modern Construction Co., Ltd., Moncton, N.B.
First contract: Grading, provision of culverts and base course for approximately 5-3 miles from the Cheticamp entrance to Trout brook-$469,682.
Second contract: Grading, provision of culverts and base course for approximately 4-7 miles from Trout brook to French mountain; seal coat Neil's harbour to Effie's brook, approximately 8-2 miles; and superstructure for McKenzie river bridge-$724,398.70.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply];


DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
58. Departmental administration, $500,150.
60.	Citizenship branch, $761,200.
Miscellaneous grants-
61.	Canadian general council of the Boy Scouts Association, $15,000.
62.	Canadian council of the Girl Guides Association, $12,000.
63.	Boys' Clubs of Canada, $10,000.
64.	Canadian Writers' Foundation, $6,000.
Immigration branch-
65.	Administration of the Immigration Act, $950,650.
66.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $10,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $5,763,851.
67.	Field and inspectional service abroad, $1,800,831.
68.	To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for immigrants, including care en route and while awaiting employment, $450,000.
Indian affairs branch-
69.	Administration, $484,147.
Indian agencies-
70.	Operation and maintenance, $2,609,236.
71. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $591,776.
Reserves and trusts-
72.	Operation and maintenance, $291,294.
Welfare of Indians-
73.	Operation and maintenance, $2,638,947.
74. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,153,753.
75.	Grants to agricultural exhibitions and Indian fairs, $7,750.
76.	Fur conservation, $330,095.
Education-
77.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $9,678,096.
78.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $4,441,000.
79.	Grant to provide additional services to Indians of British Columbia, $100,000.
National gallery of Canada-
81.	Payment to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, $130,000.
82.	To provide for the construction of a permanent Canadian pavilion at the Venice international biennale of art from currencies owned by Canada and available only for governmental or other limited purposes in Italy, $25,000.
83.	Grant to Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, $4,025.
Immigration branch-
526. To provide, subject to regulations of the treasury board, for working capital advances in the current and subsequent fiscal years to posts and employees on posting abroad, and to authorize the creation of a special account in the consolidated revenue fund to which shall be charged such advances and to which shall be credited expenditures made by and advances recovered from the said posts and employees; the excess of the amounts charged over the amounts credited to the account at any time not to exceed $275,000, of which $230,000 has already been provided under vote 626, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1955, $45,000.
A-Department-
608.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $60,356.
Citizenship-
Miscellaneous grants-
609.	Grant to the Canadian council of the Girl Guides Association towards defraying a portion of the operating costs of the centenary world camp to be held in Canada in the summer of 1957, $25,000.
Immigration branch-
610.	Administration of the Immigration Act- further amount required, $159,317.
611.	Field and inspectional service, abroad-further amount required, $247,435.
612.	To provide, subject to the approval of
treasury board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation assistance for	immigrants-further
amount required in order to provide for transportation and other assistance to immigrants and settlers from April 1, 1956, $2,255,000.
Indian affairs branch-
613.	Reserves and trusts-operation and maintenance-further amount required, $37,525.
614.	Welfare of Indians-operation and maintenance-further amount required, $225,900.
615. Education-administration,	operation and maintenance-further amount required, $512,056.
National film board-
241.	Administration, production and distribution of films and other visual materials, $3,351,859.
242.	Acquisition of equipment, $157,622.
243.	To provide for the dismantling, conversion and installation of existing equipment, acquisition of new equipment, removal expenses and other costs related to the transfer of the national film board to new building, $1,026,127.
[Stage Direction]
Supply
653. To provide for the dismantling, conversion and installation of existing equipment, acquisition of new equipment, removal expenses and other costs related to the transfer of the national film board to new building-further amount required, $68,800.
A-Public archives-
334.	General administration and technical services, $408,971.
B-National library-
335.	General administration, $146,221.
336.	Payment to the national library purchase account for the purpose of acquiring books, in conformity with section 12 of the National Library Act, $40,000.
Public archives-
529. To authorize the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of producing, processing or dealing in microfilm, the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed, $27,500.

[Stage Direction]
436.	The St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers-Canadian section, $180,180.
Canal services-
437.	Administration, $137,030.
438.	Operation and maintenance, $6,268,240.
439.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $1,499,975.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday. August 9, 195S