1957-01-25

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to amend the Income Tax Act (communication of information).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Tax Act so as to make it possible for a minister of the crown to communicate to parliament information obtained under the Income Tax Act with respect to corporations. No change is made in the secrecy provisions so far as the income tax returns of individuals are concerned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR HEARING OF CORPORATION APPEALS IN PUBLIC

["My hon. friend will understand, of course, that the resolution provided for a report to the assembly by the secretary general at twelve o'clock today. Negotiations were under way last night and negotiations are under way now, so it would not be in the interests of those negotiations for me to state at this moment a position that cannot properly be taken until the full results of those negotiations are made known. I believe that will commend itself as the kind of reply which my hon. friend would, in these circumstances, make himself."]
Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to amend the Income Tax Act (corporation appeals).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Tax Act so as to provide that when corporations take an appeal to the income tax appeal board the hearing shall be in public. No change is made with respect to the right to have an appeal heard in camera in the case of an individual.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with the current matter before the United Nations and in particular as to the terms under which Israel is to retire its forces from the Gaza strip and the Aqaba area. Would the acting minister say what stand Canada intends to
take, and in particular does it not intend to support the stand of Israel that withdrawal should not take place until adequate provision has been made to protect Israel from potential future acts of aggression? Would the minister say what attitude Canada intends to take on this matter and in particular whether the minister does not think that before withdrawal takes place there should be such defensive measures taken by the United Nations as would prevent a possible future outbreak of hostilities between Egypt and Israel?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: My hon. friend did not find it possible, I am sure, to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. In a matter so important he would not expect anyone to give an ill-considered reply. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is at the United Nations. The government is in continuous contact with him and does view this situation with the interest which the people of Canada would expect the government should have in a matter of such great importance.


John George Diefenbaker: The decision is to be
made today in the United Nations, Mr. Speaker, and Canada's stand should be forthcoming. I think the House of Commons has a right to know what stand Canada intends to take on a matter as important as this.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend will understand, of course, that the resolution provided for a report to the assembly by the secretary general at twelve o'clock today. Negotiations were under way last night and negotiations are under way now, so it would not be in the interests of those negotiations for me to state at this moment a position that cannot properly be taken until the full results of those negotiations are made known. I believe that will commend itself as the kind of reply which my hon. friend would, in these circumstances, make himself.



STATELESS PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell the house if Canada is a

Inquiries of the Ministry
signatory to the convention on the status of stateless persons adopted by the United Nations economic and social council in September 1954 which states in part that:
Where a stateless person requires the help of the authorities of a foreign country to whom he could have no recourse the government of that country shall afford him aid.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Colin Cameron: And further:
A stateless person will not be expelled except on grounds of national security and then only after a decision has been reached by due process of law. In the event of expulsion he will be allowed a reasonable time within which to seek legal admission to another country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that my hon. friend did not give me advance notice of his intention to ask this question, the answer which I give is subject to verification. My impression is that we have now under study the convention that was projected and discussed at the United Nations, and that as a result of that study we will be in a position to determine when and if we should give our support.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallell (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Prime Minister.
In view of the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs as to the importance of the next few days at the United Nations, and the circumlocution of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in answering the questions put to him by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, can the Prime Minister tell the house what instructions have gone forward to the Canadian delegation at the United Nations with respect to the position they should take concerning the Gaza strip, and if it is their intention to introduce a resolution to ensure full passage of all ships through the Suez canal, or to support such a resolution if introduced?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I cannot make any further disclosures beyond those made by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. The hon. gentleman knows that this is a very important matter and that resolutions, to be passed by the assembly, require that there should be approval by two-thirds of the members giving an affirmative vote. Negotiations are taking place, and it is not possible at this time to determine in detail what the exact form of resolutions will be in order to bring about the results which we hope can

be achieved. The question is being investigated very diligently and we are getting frequent reports from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) about the progress of these negotiations, and he is fully aware of the interest of the government and of the Canadian public in the free passage of ships through the Suez canal and in the maintenance of the cessation of hostilities in that area; and all our efforts are intended to obtain satisfactory results with regard to these two important matters.


John George Diefenbaker: We have some difficulty in finding out what the Canadian position is. I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees that this is the Canadian situation, as reported in the New York Times this morning: "that Israel should withdraw from all Egyptian territory without conditions, and on a mere nebulous promise that some time later the matter will be taken up". Is that Canadian policy, that Israel has to get out without guarantees being given in advance?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It does not matter in what form the hon. gentleman asks his questions, I am not going to go further than I have gone up to the present time.


Mr. Fulton:: Have you a policy?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: We have a policy, and the policy is to achieve results and not merely to achieve political partisan advantage here.


An hon. Member:: What a temper!


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Prime Minister why-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Meadow Lake had the floor.


John George Diefenbaker: Annoyance is no substitute for information.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of National Health and Welfare in a position to make a statement to the house as to the basis of agreement between the Ontario government and the federal government with respect to the implementation of the hospital insurance program?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can add nothing more than what I have said already twice this week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a supplementary question on this matter to the Prime Minister? Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the four provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, which have indicated agreement have a population representing 54 per cent of the population of Canada? In view of his own emphasis on the counting of noses does he not feel that this majority makes it possible for the government to go ahead now with this plan?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have not made a calculation as to what proportion of the total population of Canada is represented by the latest statistics arising out of the census that was held last year, but there has been no change in the proposal that was made and announced in the house, that the government would make its recommendation to parliament when a majority of the provinces in which a majority of the population resided would have expressed their desire to go ahead with a scheme based upon that proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the Prime Minister a further supplementary question? How substantial does the majority have to be? It is now 54 per cent and if Nova Scotia comes in the majority will be 59 per cent. Is the government going to stand by and let a few provincial governments, representing a minority of the people of this country, veto this desirable health plan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: You know that is not the case.


Mr. SI. Laurent (Quebec East):: The word "majority" has a connotation that my hon. friend well knows. There is a majority of supporters of the government in this house, as he well knows, and-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Elected on the basis of only 49 per cent of the total vote.


Charles Eugène Parent: -they would not be any less a majority were they substantially fewer in numbers than they happen to be at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And will be after the next election.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is my hon. friend's prediction but it is frequently the case that no one is a prophet in his own country.



INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of press reports that Ontario,
Inquiries of the Ministry although agreeing to the health plan, may wish to delay implementation for a year or two, can the minister say whether such a delay by one province will make it necessary for other agreeing provinces to delay similarly or can any province go ahead as soon as the plan comes into effect?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is familiar with the terms of the proposals made by the federal government last year. There is nothing I can add. Those proposals provide in themselves the answer to the question which my hon. friend has put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you are modifying the proposals.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance on a different subject? Can the minister say, or will he confirm, that an application has been made to GATT for permission to renegotiate the tariff agreement between Canada and the United States on the subject of potatoes? If so, will he inform the house whether those negotiations are under way?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I confirm that an application was made to GATT for the privilege of renegotiating with the United States the tariff on potatoes. Since that occurred a matter of only a few days ago I do not think anything has been done since that time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not quite understand the minister's reply as to whether permission was received.


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Mr. MacLean:: May I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Cape Breton South wish to question the minister further on the matter raised by the hon. member for Kamloops?


Mr. Gillis:: No; it is on an entirely different subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to see the hon. member for Queens?


Clarence Gillis: I give away to the hon. member for Queens.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister assure the house that the negotiations will take place at as early a date as possible, with a view to having the outcome of such negotiations, if favourable, included in this year's budget?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Speaker, the negotiations with the United States will be conducted at a time suitable to both parties and may or may not take a long time to carry out, I do not know; they may not even be successful. I am sure all hon. members who are concerned about this subject would hope they would be, and I would hope they would be and that we shall conduct the negotiations in that neighbourly spirit that will probably get results.


John Angus MacLean: I have a further supplementary question. If the negotiations are not completed in time for the results to be included in this year's budget, will any action be taken by the government to change the tariff and bring down legislation before the next year's budget is presented?


Walter Edward Harris: I think we ought to look forward to conducting negotiations with all the expedition that we can, together with a desire to achieve a desirable result. When that time comes it will be soon enough to decide what to do about the tariff itself.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour? Is it proper for a full-time civil servant employed by the unemployment insurance commission to engage in other work, such as being the director of a company like the Northside Freight Handlers Limited, now functioning on the island of Cape Breton?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. I would not consider it proper for a full-time civil servant to engage in such activities if they were in any way to interfere with good public relations of his office, or with the proper and efficient discharge of the duties of that office.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Souih Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister make a statement to the house concerning today's press report that two infantry battalions are to be disbanded?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are at present in the Canadian regular army 15 infantry battalions and two armoured regiments. It is proposed to reduce the 15 infantry battalions to 13 for the present and to increase the two armoured regiments to three. Accordingly, two battalions of the Canadian guards, the third and fourth battalions, are being reduced to nil strength. The new armoured regiment is to be activated from the militia and I hope to be able to announce the name of the unit at an early date.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the minister what is the name of the armoured regiment that will be formed from the militia?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have just said that I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly giving that information; I cannot do so today.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. May we now conclude that the department has adopted the policy of more armour and greater mobility for our army so long advocated by the opposition?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The hon. member can make his own deductions.
I would like now to answer the question the hon. member asked yesterday with respect to the facilities in the newly reconstructed Minto armouries at Winnipeg. I would answer his question by saying that in rebuilding this armoury there has been no change in the basic design and while there are facilities provided for basketball, volley ball, tennis and so on, as is the case in other armouries, no special provision has been made to have an indoor running track.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister take it under consideration and perhaps make a change in the plan?


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. What is the form to be of the projected new armoured regiment? Is it to be a regular armoured

regiment with Centurions, or an armoured reconnaissance regiment or an armoured car regiment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am sorry but I did not hear the last part of the hon. member's question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I asked if the projected new regiment is to be a regular tank regiment such as the two we have or an armoured reconnaissance or an armoured car regiment?


Ralph Osborne Campney: It is to be a regiment similar to the two already in existence.



MIDDLE EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister now in a position to make the statement which he stated on Wednesday last he would make with respect to the Canadian forces in the United Nations police force?


Ralph Osborne Campney: No, Mr. Speaker, but I expect to be able to do so on Monday.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? Is it the policy of the Canadian National Railways to abrogate agreements with legitimate unions by giving car cleaning contracts to organizations such as the Northside Freight Handlers Limited, now functioning in Cape Breton?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton South was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. I may say that I have communicated with the management of the Canadian National Railways who advise me that it is not their policy to abrogate any agreements.


An hon. Member:: But they do it all the time.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to take this opportunity to point out that on July 25 last I made a statement in connection with a similar matter, and I would refer the hon. gentleman to Hansard. I would also like to remind him that he is a member of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned and operated by the government and
82715-41i
Inquiries of the Ministry that when the accounts of the Canadian National Railways are before the committee he will be able to pursue to his heart's content the implications of his question today.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I might thank the minister for that answer, but I was afraid the committee he mentioned would not meet this year.


George Carlyle Marler: I hope, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's fear will prove not to have any foundation.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, sir.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Siuart (Charloiie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the board been established to investigate the serious tragedy resulting in the loss of the pilot boat outside Saint John harbour in which the crew perished? If so, when might we expect the investigation will get under way?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, a formal investigation is to be undertaken by the Hon. Mr. Justice W. A. I. Anglin as commissioner. Mr. George T. Clark, barrister, of Saint John, has been appointed counsel. The following have been appointed to assist the commissioner at the investigation: Captain A. W. Hilton, shipping master of Yarmouth, who is to serve as nautical assessor, and Captain George P. Elliott, retired marine superintendent, of Halifax is to serve also as nautical assessor. The investigation is scheduled to open at Saint John court house on February 6, 1957.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Owing to the great fall-off in sales in Canada of black and white television sets, has the C.B.C. come to any decision regarding production of colour programs for C.B.C. and other stations?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The policy with reference to
production of colour television is progressing.
I do not know that there has been any change because of the fact that the sale of black and white sets has fallen off. We are

Inquiries of the Ministry trying to keep up to date with other countries as becomes our importance. I am sure that the progress of colour television will go on in Canada, perhaps not as quickly as in our neighbouring country but sufficiently fast to meet the demand which we have.



INQUIRY AS TO EXPORTS TO COMMUNIST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, arising out of a report by prominent people in the grain industry to the effect that Canada's excellent export record in the sale of wheat to date this year may not be maintained. More specifically, can the minister say why so far exports have not been made to Russia or any of the satellite nations, and whether any part of the agreed quantity of 15 million bushels which Russia was to take this year is likely to be shipped in the near future?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The government of Canada
has a trade agreement with Russia which provides that Russia will buy a minimum of 15 million bushels of wheat this year. We have every reason to think that agreement will be carried out and we have been advised that certain ships have been chartered to move the wheat.
As far as dealings with iron curtain countries are concerned the situation in those countries is disturbed, particularly with respect to Hungary's position and to some extent Poland and Czechoslovakia. Purchases from those countries did not occur in the first half of the crop year last year and we are still hopeful that purchases will be arranged before this crop year ends.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government planning to introduce at this session of parliament an amendment to the Old Age Assistance Act which will reduce the residence requirement from 20 years to 10 years? Such an amendment would bring this act into line with the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act, and thereby prevent discrimination against new Canadians.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only refer my hon. friend to the answer which I gave to that question in this house I think a week ago Wednesday.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gar son). Has the minister heard of the disturbance at Dorchester penitentiary in New Brunswick, and, if so, is he in a position to give any details?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure the Minister of Justice will on Monday if in fact there has been a disturbance.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: On Wednesday last the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) asked if a decision had been arrived at regarding federal participation under the Canada Water Conservation Act for a proposed flood control and water conservation scheme on the upper Thames river.
I believe the best way in which to reply to the question would be by reading a short extract from the letter I wrote on January 17 to Hon. Mr. Nickle, minister of planning and development for Ontario. I quote:
The proposals of the authority were given further careful consideration from an engineering and an economic standpoint. I may say now that from an engineering point of view the project appears to represent a comprehensive plan of river control, and that it would indeed serve to reduce flooding on the upper Thames river. However, following a review of the benefit-cost data made available to this department it does not appear that there is, as yet, a satisfactory demonstration that there are clearly defined benefits of sufficient value to justify federal participation.
In these circumstances I would suggest that the best course would be for the upper Thames valley conservation authority to consider whether or not it is satisfied that the benefit-cost position has been investigated adequately. If the conservation authority believes that further investigation would disclose a more favourable picture, it may wish to provide the supporting data.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the defence of Christian George Hanna being paid for by a Vancouver newspaper?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have not the faintest idea. I know I am not paying for it, and I doubt if Mr. Hanna is in a position to do so.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has there been a recent change in the interest rate payable on deposits in the post office savings bank? If so, what is the change and what is the reason for it?


Walter Edward Harris: am not sure that there has been a recent change but I would not be at all surprised if there has been, in line with the change in interest rates generally. However, I think the Postmaster General would probably be able to answer that question better than I can.



INTEREST RATES ON MUNICIPAL CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister going to take some steps, either by expression of opinion or by definite direction, to make it possible for municipalities to finance necessary capital construction at lower rates of interest?
Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne mentioned an item of legislation intended to be of assistance to municipal corporations. It is on the order paper and I hope we will reach it in due course in order that it may be given approval by the house. I think the hon. gentleman's question relates more directly to capital assistance to municipal corporations, and I do not recall that this parliament ever did that except during the depression years under an act passed at that time. However, several, if not all, of the provincial governments have on their statute books and in operation authority to assist either by the purchase or the guarantee of bonds issued by municipal corporations. I understand that
Inquiries of the Ministry a great many municipal corporations have had the benefit of these statutes in the past and are using them now.


John Cameron Pallett: My question did not have to do with capital assistance but rather with direction as to the lowering of the interest rates charged on these bonds that even ithe municipal corporations to which the minister refers must pay. That depends entirely on direction from the minister. Has any thought been given to that?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, as I think the Prime Minister has said on other occasions, we consider everything that might be in the interests of the Canadian people.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the widespread public protest arising from the threatened expulsion of persons of Indian ancestry from the Hobbema reserve in Alberta, will the minister indicate to the house what consideration is being given to suspending these evictions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, evidently the hon. member for Edmonton East was not in the house the other day when I answered a question put to me by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. There is nothing I could add to that statement at this time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nothing you are prepared
to do.


Ambrose A. Holowach: Is it a fact that under the terms of the act the minister has the right to intercede and suspend such evictions?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The other day I said I
would not give the house legal opinions. I think that was a sensible view then and I think it is still a sensible view.


Ambrose A. Holowach: May I just tell the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ambrose A. Holowach: May I ask the minister
a further question? Is the minister aware that the people of Canada have a heart and want a stop put to these senseless expulsions of Indians from reserves?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think if we ever reach
the orders of the day the minister will be able to demonstrate that he knows very well

Inquiries of the Ministry that the Canadian people have a heart, having regard to an item in the supplementary estimates.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the intention of the government to increase the premium on grade A hogs at an early date, and, if so, by what amount?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I am sorry, but because of the noise I was not able to hear the question.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Is it the intention of the
government to increase the premium paid on grade A hogs at an early date and, if so, by what amount?


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been no decision made to do so.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture a further supplementary question. He says that no decision has been made. Is the government giving active consideration to an increase in the premium?


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the chief government whip, or perhaps I should refer to him as the parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister. In view of the exchange between the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Cape Breton South and in view of the fact that yesterday there was no motion to set up the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, will such a committee be named by the House of Commons at this session?


Mr. W. G. Weir (Parliamentary Assistant to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I presume it is intended to do so. Arrangements are all ready to do so immediately it is called for.



REFERENCE BY MR. SPEAKER TO ASKING OF QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Six o'clock.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.\nResolutions reported and concurred in."]
Mr. Speaker:: I want to say that the question period today is an improvement perhaps over some previous days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: But I want to add that it did not pass without notice as far as I am concerned that it is either impossible for some hon. members to find the rules I quoted yesterday-maybe they do not have Beauchesne, third edition-or if they have read them they do not understand them the same way I do.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Terminable services-
538. Freight assistance on western feed grains- further amount required, $2,000,000.


Walter Edward Harris: This item represents underestimating by the government as to the amount of feed grain that would be qualifying for this subsidy during the current fiscal year. We find that the amount previously provided is not sufficient. There has been no change in the policy, of course, and none is suggested by this supplementary item, but it does mean that during this fiscal year we will have paid a greater amount by way of subsidy on feed grain than at any time during recent memory, and the full amount of $2 million is needed now in order to make these payments.


Mr. Charlton:: It is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to criticize the payment of this freight assistance in any way, but to criticize the administration in so far as the red tape, etc., that has to be gone through is concerned and the fact the government has never made this a permanent policy as we have requested on many occasions in this house. The uncertainty with regard to this freight assistance has made it necessary for eastern feeders to avoid dependence on western grain for their feed requirements. It is for this reason that eastern feeders have probably increased their acreage of corn to a greater extent than would have been necessary had there been some stability in government policy with respect to freight assistance.
We never know when it is going to be dropped. It has been hinted on various occasions that the measure would be dropped. The farmer is never sure. We have asked on

several occasions that more storage space be made available for western feed grain and this has been promised. However, we are not sure whether or not it has been made available and on many occasions it has been difficult for eastern feeders to be sure of the quantity of western feed grain available.
I want to point out that this has been called, by certain people, a straight subsidy to eastern feeders. It is no such thing. It does enable the western producer to dispose of some of his surplus to eastern feeders in a great deal better way than he could if this freight assistance were not paid. The advantage, I think, it could be fairly said, is just about 50-50 between the western producer and the eastern feeder. If there is any truth in the fact the government is considering eliminating this policy then I wish they would come out and say so. As I say, there is no certainty in the mind of the eastern feeder as to whether the assistance will be continued. He cannot make his plans very far ahead, so he adopts the only other course-


Walter Edward Harris: Did my hon. friend not see the estimates that were placed before us the other day?


John Alpheus Charlton: Yes, I saw that, but tomorrow the government could say they were not going to pay it next year; that is what I am trying to bring out. We have asked on various occasions that this be made a permanent policy so the farmer would know what to expect from one year to the next. A man cannot change the rotation of his crops in two weeks. He cannot decide he is going to put in double the acreage of feed grain in two weeks. He has to plan ahead. If the government is not considering eliminating this assistance, then at least tell the eastern feeder what the policy of the government is. It has been clearly indicated to us today by the answers to the questions on the orders of the day that the government is continuing to consider matters but makes no firm statement as to what they are considering or what their decisions have been.
As I said before, as a consequence of this uncertainty eastern farmers have increased their acreage of corn and that is detrimental to the western producer because naturally if the eastern feeder is producing more corn then he is not going to require the amount of western feed grain he would otherwise require. Then, there is the matter of price which has caused some eastern feeders to hesitate about purchasing western feed grain. There are many uncertainties in connection with this system. As I said, we have urged the government to make this legislation permanent in nature. I hope the government will state now that the policy will be in effect
Supply-Agriculture
for another year at least if they do not want to make it permanent, so the farmers can plan now for their future requirements.


Mr. Herridge:: I am very glad, Mr. Chairman, that the government has not listened to the vociferous pleas on the part of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre for the abolition of freight assistance on feed grain.
I am very pleased to know his is a voice crying in the wilderness in this respect. I trust that in respect to old age pensions, the difficulties from which we have been suffering and many other questions he has raised, his will continue to be a voice crying in the wilderness. We are pleased to know that the policy of the government is to continue this freight assistance. It is of great help to the farmers in British Columbia, particularly the dairy and poultry producers because the cost of grain is a major item in their costs.
I do urge the government to give reconsideration to the restoring of the reduction that was given effect last year, because this assistance is paid on the basis of so much per ton and every time there is a freight rate increase, from which the farmers have suffered recently, the percentage of assistance they receive in respect of this feed grain is lessened and lessened. I urge that consideration be given to that, particularly in view of the recent freight rate increases across Canada.
I have the honour to represent, on the whole, small farmers who work long hours and who receive a very modest return, but their costs are high with respect to feed grains. There is one community that is now paying $80 per ton for No. 5 wheat landed on the wharf at that point, and that is the highest cost of which I know at the present time. Then, the farmer has to truck it 20 miles in some cases. When you relate that cost to the farmer to what the wheat producers on the prairie are receiving you can see that someone in between is pinching quite a lot and it is the opinion of the farmers I have the honour to represent that it is the milling companies of Canada.
Now, because of that situation which has existed over quite a number of years there is a growing demand on the part of dairy and poultry producers in my constituency for the government to make arrangements to enable them to buy their wheat or grain direct from the farmer through the wheat board and overcome this middleman's cost. Our farmers are organized members of fruit associations, poultry organizations and dairy organizations, and they would not for a moment want to do anything that would destroy the effective organization with respect to the marketing of wheat on the prairies. But we do suggest that the government could give consideration

Supp ly-A griculture
to making some arrangements for these producers to buy in carload lots direct from the farmers through the wheat board and overcome this middleman's cost. That is all I have to say on this question, at the present time, Mr. Chairman. In conclusion, I once again urge the government to reconsider the amount of the subsidy in view of the recent increase in freight costs.


Mr. Quelch:: We, in this group, have always supported the policy of freight assistance on feed grains to both the east and the west. I agree with the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand that there should be a greater degree of permanence given to this legislation so the farmers would know this policy will continue and they can plan ahead. I have one or two questions I should like to ask in this regard. Can the minister say what was the total amount of freight assistance given on shipments to both the east and the west? Can the minister break down both of those amounts to show how much was for oats, how much for barley and how much for wheat?


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman, I can give the total over a number of years of the payments made with respect to the shipments in all the provinces, but the details as to how it is broken down in the various kinds of grain I could not give. I can only add that I notice it comes to some $254 million over the period of time that the subsidy has been in effect. This year the increase is expected to be something in the order of 200,000 tons more than last year, but I will put on the record by way of answers to questions the information requested. As to the permanent side of it, I might draw to the attention of the committee that I am afraid I am entering into a discussion of next year's estimates. The reason I intervened when the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand was speaking is that the provision is in this year's estimates again.


Mr. Knight:: I assume the government is not responsible for the quality of feed grain sold under this legislation. When the hon. member for Kootenay West was speaking he must have drawn to the attention of the committee whether or not the government should subsidize the freight charges upon rubbish such as certainly is received sometimes by the farmers in the maritime provinces. I do not know whether I should say this, but I think there is a distinct connection between the subsidization of freight and the quality of the material that is shipped to the eastern provinces. I am well aware of the fact that a good deal of the mixing is done in the provinces. I personally have seen what was supposed to be feed grain put out by private mixers in one of the

maritime provinces and I saw a farmer in one of those provinces mix some of the so-called feed with water and offer it to his hogs. They refused to eat it.
I think I might add a word on what the hon. member for Kootenay West has said. I have mentioned this before. Apparently it is not a good idea because nobody ever does anything about it. It seems to me that when there is a feed industry of such great volume as they have in the maritime provinces the farmers should get together in their cooperatives and buy grain, as my colleague suggested, not necessarily from the western farmers through the wheat board but from the wheat board itself. I do not care whom they buy it from, but I think it should be bought under a Canadian certificate of quality so that those people would know what they are getting.
I am well aware of the fact that a great deal of this mixing is done by private concerns. There is a great bulk of wheat seeds, rubbish, wild oats, wild buckwheat and other grains of that kind that disappear every year. They go somewhere. My suspicion is that they go into the stomachs of maritime hogs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I want to say just a word on this problem raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West. The interest of the farmers in my constituency in the question of feed grain arises mainly in respect of the cattle ranchers who wish to put their cattle on grain to finish them for market. Our area is not a good grain-growing area but it is a very good cattle-ranching area. The situation is that we are in direct competition with prairie beef on the British Columbia market. The British Columbia ranching industry does not produce more than from 40 per cent to 45 per cent of the beef consumed in our province. The rest is brought in mainly from Calgary and Edmonton, but most of it from Calgary. Therefore, it will be seen that in our own domestic market we compete with prairie beef, probably 100 per cent of which is grain-fed. When we pay the prices for our feed grain, which the hon. member for Kootenay West referred to, it will be seen that we are at a very distinct disadvantage, particularly in light of the fact that the fashion being set now is almost universally for grain-fed beef. We know that well-finished, grass-fed beef is just as good as grain-fed beef, but we are a minority producing province and it is virtually impossible to fight against the trend for feed-grain beef which is set by the packers. Something has to be done. Either the feed-grain assistance must be increased or else our

ranchers must be allowed to buy direct from the farms on the prairies their supplies of feed-grain, as the prairie farmer is allowed to do now. It may be that it would have to be a combination of both.
The prairie farmer gets his feed grain at about $20 or $25 a ton from his neighbour without any interference. We are not allowed to buy it direct from the farm and if we do we do not get any feed grain assistance in bringing it in and so we are hit both ways. It is an economic problem of great proportions for our farmers. I am not speaking for an area that is not really a good beef-producing area; I am speaking for an area that is a good beef-producing area, as the Minister of Agriculture knows, but which is squeezed between the two policies of the government, one of which seeks to reduce the feed grain assistance per ton, while the other makes it impossible for the farmers to buy their grain at prices which will enable them to compete with their competitors on the prairies. If the policy of not permitting direct farm purchases is to be followed, then I think the only fair thing to do-and I insist the only fair thing to do-is to increase the amount of feed grain assistance so that our farmers will be relieved by that action from the consequences of the unfair competitive position they are placed in by the other action of the government.
Since we are discussing this question of feed grain assistance, this seems to me to be the appropriate place to bring it up. The Minister of Finance apparently is in charge of putting these supplementary estimates through. I put it to him, and he has the choice, in fairness, of increasing the amount provided for feed grain assistance or persuading his colleagues to permit us to buy grain direct from the prairies.


Mr. Hahn:: I would be remiss in my duties if I failed to take part in this particular discussion by reason of the fact that some of the questions raised are of relative importance to the district which I represent.
I feel, as do other hon. members, that the feed grain assistance must be maintained. I was very interested in the observations made by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand because I recall that on April 9 last year, I think it was, when the board of transport commissioners held their hearings in respect of freight rates, a portion of a letter from the Minister of Agriculture was read in which he was purported to have written that there is of course a possibility parliament might change the law.
As I recall it, about February 28, 1954,- I have not the Hansard here-when this same 82715-42
Supply-Agriculture
minister brought in a change in the regulations which drastically reduced feed grain assistance to my province, it had a dire effect upon the industry in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
I fully realize that what the Minister of Finance said is quite true-and I think he would agree with me-that when a certain figure appears in the estimates it does not necessarily follow that it will be used. If the government decides that the regulations are going to be changed, then we can have such a change and it can have a marked effect upon our industry in British Columbia. The fact remains that agriculture is the third most important primary industry in British Columbia, second to logging and mining. It does play a very important part in our lives.
With respect to the question raised by the hon. member for Kamloops, I would draw to his attention and to the attention of the committee that possibly the answer is not entirely in the fact that we have this feed grain assistance that he mentioned.
I hold in my hand a clipping from the Manitoba Co-operator of June 21, 1956, which would indicate that the complaint of one Stephen Francis Murphy, a turkey farmer from Mission, British Columbia, was heard by the courts and the following judgment was handed down:
Had the plaintiff transported his own grain from Manitoba to British Columbia for his own use, I question whether the prohibition would apply. Here the plaintiff purchased grain in Manitoba and tendered it for shipment to a company in British Columbia.
The fact remains that a British Columbia farmer is not permitted to buy grain from any of the prairie provinces without having it go through the wheat board. I am not opposed to that. I feel the wheat board is doing an excellent job in this country and I would like to see it retained. However, the difficulty as I see it is summed up in this article from the Financial Post of December 10, 1955. I realize that the date is old but it has a significant bearing on this matter. Under a dateline from Lethbridge, Alberta the article says:
At the 90 cent level, feedlot operators were swamped with deliveries of high-grade wheat. Many bought enough grain to maintain feeding operations for two years.
The farmers in Alberta and Manitoba can exchange grain at any price they wish and for considerably less than what we pay in British Columbia. The article continues:
I have just sold 10,000 bushels of No. 2 wheat at 60 cents a bushel not because I need the cash but rather because I don't see any hope of selling all my grain to the wheat board within the next two years.

Supply-Agriculture
Compare that with the minimum price the British Columbia farmer pays for No. 5 wheat of about $3 a hundredweight.
There we have a specific instance of what is being done on the prairies. I do not blame the prairie farmers. They have to get ready cash and this is a common-sense way of carrying on business, but why should they be denied the right of sending grain into British Columbia on that same basis? Better still, why should the British Columbia livestock and poultry producer be denied the right of purchasing grain on the same basis as does any farmer on the prairies? If the price is going to be consistent they should all pay the same price. We have the awkward position spoken of by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson wherein farmers in his area who raise a great deal of feed grain find it impossible to send their grain into the British Columbia market because merchants in British Columbia find it to their advantage to import birds and other products from the United States. We are not only denying a proper market to the British Columbia producers but we are also denying the prairie farmers the right to send grain into that area. I would therefore strongly urge the minister to consider a further supplementary estimate in this respect in the forthcoming year to bring back into effect the $5 that he removed on February 28, 1954.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to endorse a great deal that has already been said particularly by the hon. member for Saskatoon who complained of the quality of the grains that are being sold in markets as feed. I saw a sample not long ago which I am sure consisted mainly of sweepings and dust. It was totally unfit to be put on the market for sale and I think the minister should carefully consider the type of feed that is receiving the subsidy; otherwise we are encouraging a trade that is of no credit to Canada through shipping such grain.
I would also urge support for what was said by the hon. member for Kootenay West regarding dairy and poultry producers being able to bring their own grain from the prairies. In my area we have several retired wheat farmers who are now engaged in fruit growing and from them I have learned that if they want to get grain from their own farms on the prairies it cannot be done directly, nor can they ship their own fruit from British Columbia to the district on the prairies where they formerly lived because that is forbidden and so they must have a middleman and the railway companies each taking a pound of flesh out of both products in which the farmers are interested.

The result of this is that on the prairie a farmer has to sell five bushels of grain to buy a basket of apples and in the Okanagan valley he must sell five baskets of apples to buy a bushel of grain. The whole situation is stupid and the intervening red tape which causes this discrepancy in the cost of moving the products should be removed. I feel that the assistance now given is completely inadequate, but over and above an increase in the assistance some step should be taken to make it possible for a farmer who formerly lived on the prairies, and who is now interested in doing so, to bring in feed grain he cannot sell from his own farm to British Columbia through the wheat board but not through other channels. I think much could be done to help the prairie farmers dispose of their feed grain and the poultry and dairy farmers of British Columbia to take advantage of a fair price for their commodities.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman* I appreciate the difficulties of the farmers on the mainland of British Columbia but those difficulties are quite small compared with the problem which faces the poultry men on Vancouver island because not only do they have to pay freight by rail but there are the additional charges to move the feed from the mainland to Vancouver island.
As is well known, owing to the skill of the breeders on Vancouver island a strain of turkeys has been developed which is sometimes referred to as the double-breasted bronze which are now accepted all across Canada, and the entire turkey business very largely depends on the ability of the Vancouver island breeders to produce enough eggs to sell the day-old poults to the breeders in other parts of the country.
I feel that the business of the legitimate feed merchants should be protected because while it may be possible for some of the larger farmers to purchase feed direct from farmers in Alberta or Saskatchewan nevertheless the majority of the small farmers will not buy in carload lots and will have to deal through regular grain merchants. From the information I have received from grain merchants on Vancouver island I am convinced that their margin of profit is extremely small. It would seem to me that the solution to this problem would be to restore the freight assistance to the amount it was a few years ago before the reductions were unfortunately made. I do hope that in the coming year it will be possible for the government to increase freight assistance over the amount that is now being provided.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few words to say on this particular item not because I am a farming expert but because

I am taking a look at the economics of this proposition. In the main estimates there is a provision for $16,500,000 for feed grain assistance.
The minister is realistically stepping them up $3 million more this year. That is quite a bill and it is accumulating from year to year. As I see it the questions of feed grain and fertilizer are interlocked; they go together.
I do not see any reason why the maritime provinces should not supply themselves with feed grain provided they are given the necessary assistance, particularly with respect to obtaining fertilizer for the purpose of rehabilitating their land. I think it is time that we began to think of that. The other place is establishing a committee to look into the question of better uses of land and the Gordon commission also emphasizes that matter.
During the war, I think around 1942, the department of munitions and supply made a grant to the Dominion Coal Company for the purpose of research into the use of the slag at the steel plant as a fertilizer. Quite a lot of money was spent on that. I do not know whether or not a report was made by the company. However, a few weeks ago an eminent agricultural expert in the maritimes made the statement that there were 100,000 tons of slag being thrown away each year at that steel plant which could have been used as fertilizer on the land in Nova Scotia.
It is costing a lot of money to take feed grain from the prairies into the maritimes. I think that the cost down there is about $80 a ton; it is $60 in British Columbia. I know that fertilizer is well over $90 a ton. The point I am making is that this assistance is necessary in the unplanned use of our land at the present time. I do not think that the answer is just in continuing to give assistance but is also in what the Senate committee will find and what the Gordon commission will find as to better utilization of our land in our own area. I believe that the questions of fertilizer and feed grain are interlocked. I might tell the minister that in my lifetime we had one of the largest fertilizer plants in Canada located at that steel plant in Sydney. It was there until the late thirties but it followed the other industries into Canada. Now we are dragging it back and paying subsidies on feed grain and other commodities which we think could be produced in the maritime provinces for our own use at least.
I wish to leave this observation with the minister because it is true, at least I think it is, that there is 100,000 tons of slag which could be used as fertilizer and thereby provide fertilizer cheaply if not gratis to the farmers in that area, which would assist them 82715-42i
Supply-Agriculture
and persuade them to go into the production of feed grain.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, there is a point or two which I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and also to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture regarding assistance with respect to feed grain. I believe since the main estimates on this were passed during the last year there has been an increase in freight rates, and this has had a very detrimental effect on the economy on using feed grains from the west in the maritimes in spite of the assistance, because as has already been pointed out by some hon. members, especially the member for Kootenay West and the member for Humber-St. George's, in the throne speech debate, and I would commend him on what he had to say to the minister, by reason of the 11 per cent increase in freight rates the freight cost of delivering a ton of grain in the maritimes has increased, depending upon the area, as much as 50 per cent of what it previously cost.
As a result of a whole series of freight rate increases since this legislation was first introduced much of its benefit has been dissipated because the actual cost per ton in freight on feed grain brought into the maritimes has increased. It has gone up rapidly, I believe, because there has been no corresponding increase in the amount granted by the feed grain assistance legislation. I would like to have some information from the minister as to what is the actual freight rate cost of delivering a ton of grain to some representative point in the maritimes, and also what it was when this legislation was first introduced, what it is now and perhaps what it was at an intermediate point when the freight rates were at some intermediate figure. In any case this rapid increase in freight rates on feed grain to the maritimes has in many instances made the difference between a profitable and an unprofitable operation in the case of persons who are producing pork, turkeys and many other things. The result now is that many farmers in the maritimes have gone completely out of pork production because of the increased cost of feed.
For the last couple of years in the maritimes we have had the absurd situation that when a woman goes into a meat shop, especially during the holiday season, to buy a turkey she is as likely as not to get a turkey which was raised in California or in some other large turkey ranch in the United States. Part of the reason why these imports are increasing is that they are more highly processed and in most cases are ready for the oven when bought; frequently that is not the case with respect to Canadian turkeys.

Supply-Agriculture
I would also like to have verification on another point. Most farmers in the maritimes are under the impression that there are only certain sources from which they can obtain western feed grain. I think it would be to the advantage of all concerned if the situation could be clarified by the minister so that individual millers in the maritimes, or cooperatives or others who import feed grain, would be fully apprised as to what are their privileges. I am under the impression that they could order grain direct from some company in western Canada which is acting as an agent of the wheat board and have it shipped direct or perhaps even from a line elevator. I am not sure on that last point. If that is the case I think it should be more generally known.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, I would like first of all very strongly to endorse the point made by the member for Okanagan Boundary and then I would like to cite certain instances in my own area. Farmers in my own area are not retired fruit farmers, but are dairy farmers who own farms on the prairies and receive a share of the crop and they would be very glad if they could go into the province of Saskatchewan with their own trucks and haul the feed into their own part of the country. However, the minister knows that that is contrary to the regulations concerning the grain trade at the present time.
In my riding I have a problem a little different from that which exists in some of the others. We produce a lot of wheat which is shipped in carload lots, mainly to the coast, for feed purposes. It is evident that the price they receive for that grain according to the local market in British Columbia is depressed by the amount of the subsidy. I agree, Mr. Chairman, that in the over-all picture of British Columbia the subsidy is of great assistance to the agricultural economy and must be continued; indeed, it should be raised, but at the same time I would suggest that our wheat growers in that part of the province which I represent, when they ship their grain to the coast for use there as feed, should be entitled to the same subsidy as if the grain came from the prairies. That is the only point I wish to make.
I would like to add my support for a continuation of the subsidy and for an increase of the subsidy, but I would also suggest very strongly to the minister that he take into consideration the point I have made regarding a subsidy to our growers of wheat when they ship their grain to the coast for feed purposes.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support some of the things that have

been said here with regard to the position of dairy and poultry farmers on the coast. There are quite a large number of poultry farmers in my constituency, and they suffer very badly from the effects of the present price structure with regard to feed. Some of them have, I think, been overcoming their difficulties recently by bringing in feed grain from the Peace river block of British Columbia which they can do, of course, without interference by the wheat board authorities.
However, I think there are certain disadvantages about that type of solution. In the first place I do not think we should rely on records which might undermine the position of the wheat board and, in the second place, the supply of feed grain from the Peace river block is fairly limited; they don't get a subsidy. It has occurred to me for some time, Mr. Chairman, that we are overlooking a very useful natural advantage that we have in western Canada. We have on the Pacific coast the only temperate climate in Canada-the only mild climate.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: What about ours?


Colin Cameron: It is merely a matter of meteorological fact, and because this is a matter of meteorological fact it means that on the Pacific coast the production of dairy and poultry products can be undertaken in much more advantageous circumstances than it can in more severe climates. We have on the other side of the Rockies one of the major grain-growing areas of the world, and it does seem strange to me, Mr. Chairman, that we have not yet achieved some arrangement of our agricultural economy in this country whereby the enormous stocks of feed grain for which, according to my colleagues here, the prairie farmers receive the very minimum of income, cannot be transported to the Pacific coast for use in the manufacture of dairy and poultry products under the very best conditions.
I admit that this is not entirely due to the operations of the government, but it is perhaps due in part to the failure of the government to take action. In British Columbia almost the entire feed business is under the control of two firms; one is a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the large milling companies of Canada, and the other has a close connection with a milling company by virtue of interlocking directorships. The "spread" between the price paid to the producers of grain and the price paid by my constituents is almost unbelievable, and as an instance of this robbery that is going on I would like to cite the case of one of my constituents who has a very large turkey

farm. He decided one day that he was "fed up" with the enormous price the feed company was charging for grain, so the next time the salesman for that company came round he said he was making arrangements to bring grain from the Peace river, and instal his own grinding machinery. The salesman promptly reduced the price by $17 a ton.
The government did institute an investigation, some years ago, of this particular factor in our economy-the milling industry-and some quite startling revelations came out of that inquiry, but no action was taken at that time. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that while the subsidy on grain feeds is certainly desirable and, as the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke said just now, should be increased, that in itself will not solve the main problem, which is to see that the produce of the prairie farmers reaches the people in my constituency and province who need it, paying the least possible tribute to the middleman in the process.
I would commend to the Minister of Agriculture that he undertake a very careful restudy of that hearing which was held with regard to the milling and grain industry a few years ago, and consider whether or not there are some steps he could advise his colleagues to take in order to remedy this fantastic situation in which a stable and profitable dairy and poultry industry on the Pacific coast is being hamstrung year after year owing to this enormous "spread" between the price paid to the prairie producer and the price paid by	poultry
and dairy nroaucers on the coast. I think this is a matter of urgent national importance, and some steps should be taken by the government to remedy the present situation.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I have spoken on this and similar matters on several occasions in the past, and therefore I propose to speak for only a moment or two now. I want to say again what I have stressed in the past, namely that this is not to be considered in any way as a "handout", or as assistance to something which does not give a definite economic return to the Dominion of Canada. I am quite certain that of all the expenditures made by this government in all phases of activity there is none which has produced a greater economic return than this, or helped more, in our area, to increase the gross national product to which the Minister of Finance is so pleased to refer.
We have developed in the east today an agriculture industry which is dependent
Supp ly-A gricu Iture
almost entirely on this freight rate subvention. In the county of Kings, in my constituency, we have one of the largest poultryraising areas in Canada. A few years ago it was on a deficiency basis. Only the day before yesterday one of the leaders in the establishment of that industry, Mr. Manning Ells, the largest producer of day-old chicks in Canada, and the man who founded the poultry industry in that whole area, died. It was due to his leadership, to a large extent, that the poultry industry grew as it has done.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that this matter of a subsidy is vital. Secondly, I join with others who have spoken in believing that in view of the increase of freight rates which has taken place the government should give consideration to increasing the subsidy; whether or not that can be done at present is a matter of government policy, but certainly the speeches made in this house indicate the necessity of such action. It does not do a man much good to receive a subsidy which met the case a few years ago; today we are confronted by a continued horizontal increase in freight rates until the benefit of any subsidy received has been largely wiped out. It would be interesting to know the position of the producers in the maritimes today with regard to the effect of this subsidy as compared with their position before this horizontal increase in the freight rates came into operation.
Again I want to urge that the time has come when this should be made a permanent part of government fiscal policy. The hon. member for Brant-Haldimand asked this morning if there was any truth in reports that this scheme might be discontinued. The Minister of Finance, of course, can say:	Well,
look at your estimates. But as the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand pointed out, the estimates are only for this year, and even then we are not sure whether they are going to be adopted or whether the money is going to be spent.
At its recent convention the party to which I belong adopted as one of its planks that this policy should be a part of the permanent economic policy of the Dominion of Canada. It is not fair to producers who have risked their savings, who have developed the industry as they have and have turned a deficit area into a surplus one as they have in the east, to be dependent on the vagaries of a government to determine whether they are going to include X dollars for the subsidy this year or whether they are going to include Y dollars or whether they are not going to include anything. Then too, up until recently at least, we

Supply-Agriculture
have had half of the amount voted in the main estimates and the other half voted in the supplementaries.
This is one of the most important things which has been done for agriculture in eastern Canada in the last 20 years. It is justified in every way, shape and form. It has returned more money to the Dominion of Canada than any other one expenditure made for agriculture in the east. I am sure that no government would think of doing away with it, but let us have it written into the law in such a form that the producers can go ahead with some certainty. They face enough difficulties today without having to wonder about the whims and caprices of this government or any government that might be in power, and the time has come when this scheme should be made permanent.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: I have a question. I should like to ask the minister to clarify the problem to which the hon. member for Nanaimo referred. If a co-operative in British Columbia, Ontario or the maritimes were desirous of making a purchase of grain from a farmer in western Canada, would the subsidy be granted? I know that they would have to make the paper arrangement of having the grain sold to the Canadian wheat board and then in turn purchasing it from the board. However, can a co-operative or a large farmer buy a carload of wheat from a western farmer through the channels of the Canadian wheat board and still receive the subsidy on that carload of grain? Suppose someone-it might even be someone with a large turkey ranch as the hon. member for Nanaimo said-wanted to buy a carload of No. 6 wheat from a farmer in Saskatchewan who had a large enough quota to fill a car. Could he make arrangements with the wheat board to buy that car from the farmer, have the car shipped directly to him and purchase it from the wheat board and receive the subsidy on that carload of grain?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, it has been suggested that I might say something on this matter and one or two other matters that have been mentioned. I had hoped that I would discuss these matters on the general estimates of my department which deal with these different problems. This item only deals with one thing and I do not think we are completely in order in discussing quite a number of other things. This item only has to do with assistance on freight.
The question which has just been raised is one which does involve the farmer in some difficulties but at the same time it is very difficult to see how it can be otherwise if we are going to have the wheat board system.

The legislation that we have goes just as far as we can go under the constitution. We can control the passing of grain over a provincial boundary line and we do that under the wheat board act, but when it comes to moving grain within a province we are not able to control that.
That results in some of the things that have been mentioned, the first one being that according to a letter that was written one farmer had sold wheat to another at 60 cents a bushel, and the suggestion is that he ought to be able to sell it from one province into another at 60 cents a bushel. I have said before and I am going to repeat that is something that can be corrected by the prairie governments. It should not be permissible for a farmer or feed dealer to take advantage of a farmer who is in difficulties because he cannot get cash to induce him to accept 60 cents a bushel for wheat that is worth $1.40 even on the basis of the advance payment. There is only one authority that can stop that and that is the provincial authority. I suggest to some of my friends opposite who have been doing considerable talking that they have far more influence with these governments than I have.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why do you not answer the question?


James Garfield Gardiner: I suggest that they use their influence. I am answering the question which you were talking about out in the west a while ago and you will be talking about it again.


Hazen Robert Argue: When?


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion is that because wheat was sold in Alberta by one farmer to another at 60 cents a bushel it should be possible to sell it over the boundary line into British Columbia at 60 cents a bushel from one farmer to another. I do not think it should be possible in a province on the western plains for wheat to be sold at 60 cents a bushel within that province when that wheat, even on the basis of the advance payment, has a value of $1.40 a bushel. That is something that can only be dealt with by the provincial governments.
With respect to the other question of moving wheat through the wheat board, it stands to reason that when the wheat is put into the elevator then no matter which elevator it is the farmer gets an advance payment and he also has the right to get interim payments and the final payment when they are made. Therefore he is not only entitled to the initial payment when the wheat goes into the elevator but to full final payment.
The wheat board insists that the wheat remain in position to obtain when it is sold to

the purchaser and no matter where it is sold the price which can be obtained at the time it is sold. Therefore what is actually said is that you can put wheat into an elevator of a certain elevator company or one of the pool elevators and it can .be shipped over the mountains into British Columbia or shipped elsewhere and then you can get the wheat from the wheat board out of the elevator of that same company. It may not be exactly the same wheat. I do not suppose they can follow it through. Having taken it into the elevator at the initial point, it would be difficult to declare that it was exactly the same wheat but it would be wheat of the same grade, and it could be purchased on the other side of the mountains at whatever price the board is selling wheat on that particular day.
That money comes back into the pool and there is provision for interim payments and a final payment. If we are going to have the wheat board system I do not know how it can be done in any other way in order to make absolutely certain that the farmer on the one side of the mountains gets his proper initial payment and the farmer on the other side pays whatever the current price is at the particular time he takes it out. Therefore the whole thing enters into the transactions in connection with the pool that is carried on by the wheat board, and that is possible at present and can be done.
One or two other questions were raised during the discussion which I think I should mention while I am on my feet. One had to do with the quality of the feed which a person in the maritimes purchases or the quality of the feed on the other side of the mountains. I have continually before me on my desk in my office a list of the prices of feed for chicks on the other side of the mountains. One of the very big costs involved in those prices is fish meal which certainly is not produced on the prairies. It is produced right near where the chickens are fed. In addition, other parts of the cost are ingredients which are not involved in these freight payments at all. It is only the grain that is involved in that, and it is not grain as it is ground into feed even down in the maritime provinces or in Ontario, but it is the wheat, oats and barley that is shipped and the freight is paid on it. Then, some feed merchant in one or the other of the provinces takes that grain and has it ground into feed which is sold to the farmer. It is quite a different product from the product on which the freight assistance is paid initially.
I am quite sure that hon. members will agree too that when you put that ground feed, even if nothing else is in it but wheat,
Supply-Agriculture
oats and barley, if you put it into a bag and have the bag all handsomely painted up, there is a considerable part of the cost which the farmer is paying which is not related to the grain but is related to some service. I quite understand my hon. friend from British Columbia indicating that all the farmer had to do when he was talking to the feed merchant was to point out he could ship the grain from the Peace river area down to where he was at a certain price in order to get the tonnage price of the finished product reduced by $17. Again, I call attention to the fact that is a transaction entirely within the province of British Columbia. This government has nothing to do with it whatever.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You will not pay feed grain assistance on it?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, we do not; we do not within any province. We do not pay freight assistance on the movement of grain produced within a province to some other place within the province. As my hon. friend has said, the farmer can go to the feed merchant and say: Here I can get that grain from the Peace river country shipped down at such a rate and I can grind it myself. The feed merchant naturally does not want the farmer to get into that practice. Every farmer can do that. He can send over to the prairies and get it through the wheat board method at a much lower rate than he is being charged by the man who ground the feed, but the feed merchants do not want him to do that. This is merely a matter of bargaining between the individual on the one hand and the feed man on the other. The whole transaction is carried out within the province, and if there is any regulation of it required it would be done by the province.
I repeat that while it would probably cost a little more to get it over the mountains into Vancouver than it does to get it down from the Peace river country, or perhaps it is vice versa, I do not know, but whatever the difference is there is far more than that added in many of these instances referred to by other costs that have nothing to do with freight rates on the shipment of grain. I would suggest again, therefore, that many of these questions could be better discussed when we get around to my estimates, at which time they could be discussed under the different items to which they belong.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The minister almost accidentally answered my question. The question was quite a simple one. I think the minister realizes you can-

Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to point out I was not answering your question alone but I was answering the questions of a dozen members.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: My question is directly related to the feed grain subsidy, the item under discussion. It is quite a simple matter to retain the identity of a carload of grain. A large group of farmers could load directly in a car and, still selling through the Canadian wheat board,-I have done it myself-it would be a simple matter to maintain the identity of that car until it reached the producer who was buying the grain from the wheat board.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, do it. There is nobody stopping you.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: That is important. Then, is the feed grain subsidy paid on the carload of grain to the cooperative or individual who is purchasing it, whether he be in Ontario or British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Certainly, the freight subsidy is paid no matter who shipped it or how it was shipped. It is paid at the other end when it is proven it was feed grain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point is that it still costs three times as much to our farmers in British Columbia as it does to the farmer on the prairie.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it does not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, it does, and I have sent the minister the figures which come from the cattle co-operative in my constituency and which show exactly what it costs them to land the various grades of wheat, oats and barley at the delivery point, and buying it through the board, not through a middleman but through the board. These figures show that for the same quantity and the same grade of grain it costs the farmers three times as much in British Columbia as it does on the prairies. It is that situation to which I referred. Either you have to help us by increasing the amount of freight assistance or you have to help us by allowing us to buy direct from the farmer on the prairies the same as the cattle raiser on the prairies can buy direct from his neighbour.


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot let that pass, that it costs three times as much to get grain-


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is $65 a ton as against somewhere between $20 and $25 a ton. I will send the minister the figures.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are talking about feed that has been mixed up with other things. I am talking about grain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And I am talking about grain.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am talking about grain, not mill feeds.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why do you say I am not talking about grain? I am. I am not talking about mill feed, I am talking about grain bought from the elevators.


James Garfield Gardiner: Now, just listen to the answer then you may say whatever you want to say afterwards. It is not true that grain needs to cost anybody three times as much on the west side of the mountains as the farmers get for it on the prairies.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is not what I said; I knew the minister was going to mislead. Why does the minister not understand the question?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the question, and I understand a little about farming too.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So do I.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact is that there have been cases stated here and I think that is perhaps what my hon. friend had in his mind, that it has been stated here-I am not sure whether or not it was the hon. member for Kamloops or someone else-that someone wrote a letter

*


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are you answering my question or someone else's?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am going to answer your question. I intend to indicate to you why somebody else should have to pay a certain amount more. It has been indicated in a letter that some farmer on the prairies sold grain to another farmer at 60 cents a bushel.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not referring to that. I thought you were going to answer my question.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am saying it was stated here, and that is what I answered, and that is what you mean when you say $20 a ton, that one farmer was selling wheat to another at 60 cents a bushel. Well, I quite agree that it may cost somebody on the other side of the mountain $1.80 and that would be three times as much. But it is not necessary for the farmer at Kamloops or anywhere else to pay three times as much for grain as the farmer on the prairie gets for it because of anything done here, he pays the price of the grain plus the freight to ship it over there. This policy provides that part of that freight is paid by the government. The only difference the farmer really needs to pay is his part of the freight. If he pays anything more he pays it because he does not want to grind the grain himself or he does not want

to take it to someone else and let him grind it for a fee. He wants the privilege of going and buying feed in fancy bags in which feed is put up and which, in many cases, has something else mixed with it. Then, when he does that, after there has been so much done with the grain, he cannot compare that price with the price the farmer gets on the other side of the mountain and say he pays three times as much as the farmer gets.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has not answered my question. I am glad he has answered someone else's, if he has. My point was that the farmer on the prairie, and this is capable of proof, the cattle raiser on the prairie can go to his neighbour and get grain for between $20 and $25 a ton; that is not sold through the board, but it is what the cattle raiser on the prairie pays to his neighbour, the grain grower. The cattle producers' association in British Columbia buy their grain through the wheat board so they can get the feed grain assistance, and they find it costs them something more, somewhere between $60 and $65 a ton landed at William's lake in this case and that is somewhere between two and three times as much as the cattle grower on the prairies has to pay for his grain to feed his cattle.


James Garfield Gardiner: Irrespective of what you say, it is not correct in other than a few cases where it was sold on the prairie at 60 cents a bushel.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know one is restrained here by the parliamentary rules-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -but I tell the minister that he is stating what is not correct.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then, we are equal on that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They have been' submitted
to the minister by myself in a letter and submitted to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and they have been discussed by me with the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and they have never been questioned before. The minister is questioning them here because he knows he is backed into a corner that he cannot get out of and therefore he makes a statement which he knows to be incorrect.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend


Edmund Davie Fulton: The problem will obviously-


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has apparently-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just one second-


James Garfield Gardiner: -got the habit from-
Supply-Agriculture


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not interfere when the
minister had the floor. It is quite obvious this problem will not be dealt with because the government is not capable of providing a solution, but they might have the grace to admit that they do not have a solution instead of trying to deal with it by falsifying the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend could get
away with that kind of talk in the Conservative convention but he should not be allowed to get away with it here. I listened to him on the television and that is the kind of speech he made there. The facts are that there is not anything in this provision for freight rates that has anything to do with the question he is discussing. The fact is that it does not make any difference who ships the grain or how it is shipped, in so far as the provisions in the freight rate assistance legislation are concerned part of the freight is paid. My hon. friend suggested in his last few remarks that it was done because it was done through the wheat board. It is not done because it is done through the wheat board. As a matter of fact, most of the feed grain was not shipped through the wheat board at all when this policy was set up. The grain could be shipped from one place to another and no matter how it was shipped, so long as it could be proven it was for feeding on the farms, freight assistance was paid. That is still the case. Any of the other matters that are being talked about are not provided for under this provision at all; they are provided for under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. And that is done in order to see to it that the prairie farmer does get the money that is paid for the grain no matter where the grain is sold; whether it is sold in' Europe, in eastern Canada or over the mountains, the act is set up in such a manner as to make it possible for the farmer to get the initial payment and then to make certain that he gets all the money that is taken into the pool by selling the grain. That is all that is involved in it. All these other matters have to do with things which can' be controlled within the provinces. If wheat has been sold at these prices in Alberta, it should not be sold at these prices, and there is nobody who can stop it except the provincial governments. If on the other side of the mountains grain is being sold for more than it is entitled to be sold for after it has been handled by merchants in the province, then that is something that could be dealt with, but I doubt very much the statement that the result is that you are paying three times as much for grain. Maybe you are paying for services. I doubt whether you are paying

Supply-Agriculture
three times as much for grain in British Columbia as one farmer can get it for from another under the price system as we have it on this side of the mountains unless one person is taking advantage of another.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister not know
perfectly well that you cannot get freight assistance on grain bought direct by a farmer in British Columbia from a farmer in Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I do not know any
such thing. I do know that under the Canadian Wheat Board Act you cannot ship it that way.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You cannot ship it out. Does the minister not know, therefore, that you cannot get freight assistance because you cannot ship it?


James Garfield Gardiner: You cannot get the grain, that is all. It is not a matter of getting freight assistance.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Therefore, the only way you can get the grain is to buy it through the board and by buying it through the board it costs you between $55 and $65 a ton landed. The farmer on the prairies can buy the same grain from his neighbour for between $20 and $25 a ton. Does it not cost the British Columbia farmer three times as much?


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not cost him anything more at all; except transportation and handling charges, it does not cost three times as much. My hon. friend can figure it out for himself. In his figures he is dealing with the initial payment or a farm to farm transaction which is not usual in the first instance and with the final payment in the second.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am dealing with the landed cost of the grain and I am certainly under the impression that 60 is three times 20. If it costs my farmer $60 a ton landed it costs him three times as much as it costs the prairie farmer who can buy it for $20 a ton from his neighbour.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, if the freight rate makes up the difference that would be right, but I doubt whether it is, as a matter of fact I know it does not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I am pointing out is that the policy of the government is one thing which compels the feeder in British Columbia who wants to buy grain from the prairies to buy it from the board on a basis which costs him between $55 and $65 a ton for landing it; whereas it costs the farmer on the prairies feeding it to cattle somewhere between $20 and $25 a ton. By paying the $65 rate is the only way that my 
farmer can get the grain from the prairie. Therefore, it is costing him three times as much. Unless you do something about the freight assistance on the one hand, or allow him to buy grain direct on the other, he is going to continue in that competitive position and the minister cannot deny these facts. They were brought to his attention last year and he apparently was not prepared to do anything about them but he cannot deny they are facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are talking about bootleg prices.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not talking about bootleg prices.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, you are.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact you are talking about something that scarcely ever happens.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have another farmer here today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have had a lot more to do with farming than you have.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can ask the officials of the wheat board in this city and the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce whether it is not a fact that these purchases are made on the prairies. They have no objection to the purchases and they have no desire to stop them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has no jurisdiction over them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How is it a bootleg price, then?


Walter Edward Harris: I wonder whether I can bring the discussion back to the item under consideration. We are dealing with contributions for feed grain, subsidies on freight rates paid on feed grain, and whether or not there is any merit in the figures presented by my hon. friend, I think he will agree that he is arguing about a policy in connection with the wheat board that really does not affect this particular item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It certainly does affect the cost of the grain.


Walter Edward Harris: I am coming to that in a moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You should increase this item to take care of your policy.


Walter Edward Harris: The item has to do with contributions to the cost of transporting the feed grain, regardless of the cost of it. The cost of transporting feed grain from the prairies is $11 odd a ton. This is a contribution based on that and not on the cost of the goods

when sold or delivered in British Columbia. Therefore, I hope we can postpone the discussion on whether the cost in British Columbia because of the wheat board is so many dollars or so many other dollars until the wheat board might be under discussion in the house. If we can agree on that we can probably get this item through before the noon adjournment, unless there are some other questions I have not answered.


Victor Quelch: So much has been said about lower prices that some farmers in Alberta get for their wheat that it should be clarified. It is truly a deplorable state of affairs that many farmers in Alberta have sold wheat at 60 cents to 65 cents a bushel. The solution does not lie in the minister's suggestion that the provincial governments should deal with it. The solution is in the federal government making advances to grain stored on the farms so that the farmers will not be forced to sell their grain for 60 cents to 65 cents a bushel.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall the resolution carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: No, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
["One o'clock.\nAt one o'clock the committee took recess."]
Frederick George Hahn: The Minister of Agriculture in indicating that feed grain could be brought from the Peace river country to the lower mainland of British Columbia said that there was no subsidy allowed on this. I am wondering whether that applies should the grain be hauled by rail through the normal channels to the Pacific coast. Is the feed freight subsidy paid in such instances?


Walter Edward Harris: I am afraid I do not understand my hon. friend's geography. Would he repeat his question?


Frederick George Hahn: To carry grain from the Peace river section of British Columbia, or Alberta for that matter, to the Pacific coast it must be channelled along the Northern Alberta Railway line through Edmonton and by Canadian National Railways down to Vancouver. Does this make such shipments subject to the regulations of the wheat board and therefore entitled to a subsidy?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
could not answer the question directly by saying yes or no. It would seem to me that the practice in paying is on the basis of a voucher presented by the dealer who has
Supply-Agriculture
bought the grain for delivery to himself. That voucher would have to show the point of origin of the grain and if it were in the same province I presume the policy would be not to pay it. Whether by being transported to another province it would receive the advantage of the subsidy is a question which I must say has never been asked me before and I am not ready to answer it now but I will see if there is any difference and advise the hon. member.


Frederick George Hahn: I observe that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture is present. Perhaps he could give us the answer to that question which is a matter of some importance in our area.


The Chairman:: The hon. member for
Roberval.


Frederick George Hahn: Before we leave that point I would like to know if the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture is prepared to indicate whether the subsidy is paid on grain coming from the British Columbia Peace river area into the lower mainland of British Columbia when it is carried by the normal channels of freight through the province of Alberta.


Mr. McCubbin:: Mr. Chairman, I would have to take the hon. member's question as notice, but I can assure him that he will receive an answer to his question.
(Translation):


Mr. Villeneuve:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words about item No. 538, whereby we are asked to vote an extra $2 million for assistance to western feed grain transport. My purpose will be to point out the benefits derived from the act authorizing that assistance, particularly as it concerns Quebec farmers and feeders.
As is known, that assistance dates from October, 1941, and involves the payment by the federal government of a substantial part of the freight costs of grain shipped from the Fort William elevators eastward, notably to Montreal and Saint John, N.B., with additional compensations for other intermediate marketing centres.
Quebec farmers count on western grain. In fact 75 per cent of the feed grain consumed in that province comes from the prairies. That means that more than a million tons of grain are brought each year from the west to Quebec. I hope that hon. members from

Supply-Agriculture
the prairies are grateful for this Quebec patronage of grain producers in western Canada.
The high cost of these grains at the shipping point and the equally high cost of transportation have become a problem for Quebec farmers and cattle producers because of the rise in the operating costs of their farms and of the low selling price of their products.
Since October, 1941, the federal government has paid the not inconsiderable amount of $102 million in subsidies for the transportation of this grain from Fort William to the various selling points in the province of Quebec, the amount shipped as of December 1, 1956 being 15,633,000 tons. The average subsidy per ton has been $6.52 between 1941 and 1953 and since 1953, $7.98 per ton.
Quebec farmers and cattle breeders have therefore benefited from an average annual subsidy of $7,259,100, according to the terms of this useful piece of legislation.
It is estimated that it takes 1,000 pounds, that is half a ton of feed, to get an average hog ready for slaughtering. It therefore means that our farmers have received an average of about $4 per hog under the freight subsidy on feed grain. Without that subsidy which brings more than seven million dollars to Quebec, and without the premiums on quality, which bring an average of $1,226,100 a year to the farmers and breeders of Quebec, this kind of breeding would have come to an end long ago, in my opinion. So the Quebec farmers are in a position to appreciate the generosity of the federal government.
I am therefore pleased, as the representative of the farmers of Roberval constituency, to congratulate the federal government on its policy with regard to grain transport and I ask them to maintain and, if possible, to increase that subsidy to the greatest benefit of our farmers who are now going through difficult times.
The farmers of my constituency, as a result of the poor crop in 1956, will have to apply outside for seed grain, and I know that this legislation providing assistance to the transportation of grain will help them indirectly to face that new ordeal.
(Text):


John Alpheus Charlton: We were glad to hear the Minister, of Finance assure us this morning that everything that appears in the estimates for the coming year will be spent. I can recall several instances where items have appeared and were not spent but held over

for another year and so I was happy to receive the assurance of the minister that such will not be the case this year.


Walter Edward Harris: Only if we get around to passing it, you know.


John Alpheus Charlton: The item will be passed, never fear. The thing we are concerned about ensuring is that the department will not change its mind about it in the meantime and cancel or reduce the appropriation.
I should like to ask the minister one question with reference to the matter raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon. Is any consideration given as to the quality of the feed on which the subsidy is paid?


Walter Edward Harris: I think the hon. member for Saskatoon and my friend the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand are quite aware of the fact that the subsidy is paid on grain and not on feed and that it is not the content of the feed which the farmer buys which gains the subsidy but the grain that goes into the feed.


John Alpheus Charlton: What I am getting at, Mr. Chairman, is the matter that was raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon. Is the subsidy paid on grain that contains 90 per cent
weed seeds?


Walter Edward Harris: I could not answer that question because of the details involved but I will certainly find out if there are any, shall I say, lower grades of grain which are rejected for the purposes of this subsidy.


Mr. Cardiff:: Would the minister tell us what is done with the dirt and seeds that are removed from the grain at the lakehead?


Walter Edward Harris: Well, I am afraid there is a little too much noise. Would my hon. friend repeat his question?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I wonder if the minister could tell us what is done with the weed seeds that are removed from the grain at the lakehead in the cleaning process.


Walter Edward Harris: No, I could not tell you at the moment but I will find out what is done with them and advise the committee.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for a little clarification on one of the statements made before lunch by the minister. I gathered from his remarks that it is now possible for a producer of feed grain to make a deal with a feeder and that some transaction could take place between the feeder and the producer through the Canadian wheat board. You will recall that last year we had a similar discussion in which I asked the very same question. While the minister went on at great length and invaded every creek and inlet, still he gave the impression

that it was not quite possible that that could be done. I should like a little clarification on that point. At the same time he admitted that possibly something could be done and the Minister of Finance said that the problem would continue to receive consideration. Perhaps the minister would give a little clarification on what he said this morning. I think there have been things said here this morning which should have been said on previous occasions in connection with this piece of legislation which is before us.
While I did not hear all of the remarks made by the member for Cape Breton South, from what I did hear I think he and I are in substantial agreement. I am quite prepared to say that the people of Canada should subsidize the movement of feed grain to eastern Canada or elsewhere for the purpose of providing feed for dairy cattle and poultry, but it seems to me it is very questionable if it is economically reasonable to expect that we should take grain for cattle from one part of the country to a far distant part, thereby penalizing not only the people of Canada by paying subsidies on grain moved but also in the final analysis to some extent penalizing the consumers who consume the finished product. It seems to me the reasonable thing to do would be to feed the cattle where they are raised. It seems to me that that is the most economical way to carry on.
Therefore I am not opposed to these subsidies but I think that we should give some consideration to spending some of the money for the benefit of the consumers and the people of the country in general. I should like to have a statement from the minister in respect to the proposition that a. producer and a feeder can enter into an agreement with the Canadian wheat board to make a transfer of grain from one to the other.


Walter Edward Harris: I agree with my hon. friend when he says that some of the things which were said this morning should have been said on another occasion; that is, of course, on the main estimates. It has not been the custom on the supplementary estimates to go into the whole question in detail although there may be questions of some importance which should be answered at that time. Therefore I do not think I should try to clarify the explanation made by the Minister of Agriculture this morning. I do, however, think I can put my finger on what has been understood by anyone who deals through the Canadian wheat board. I think theoretically it would be possible for a producer to make a contract with a consumer for the sale of grain for the purpose of the subsidy; but the transportation of feed grain over the provincial boundary brings it within
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board and the trouble is that the sale must be by the farmer of his own grain and it is very difficult to make any arrangement through the wheat board which would continue identification of the grain as it passes through the wheat board's control. I think that is the practical difficulty. I hope that if members think this difficulty can be overcome they will discuss it on the main items of the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
Immigration branch-
539. To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for transoceanic, inland transportation and other assistance* for immigrants and settlers-Further	amount required, including
authority to make advances, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to the intergovernmental committee for European migration for the cost of transportation and other assistance with respect to Hungarian refugees coming to Canada, and to the provinces for the cost of caring for such refugees, $9,000,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I should ask this house to accept this item without giving a brief explanation, not only as to what is being asked for but also what is being done as a result of the policies which received almost universal approval in the house at the special session in November.
As hon. members will recall, the day after the session was prorogued I left for Vienna. I arrived in Vienna on the following day and remained there for three days. In spite of the fact that one or two newspapers in this country questioned whether it was necessary or even useful for me to make that journey, I think that if we intended to carry on the policy which was explained and approved here in parliament it was a good thing for me to have done, because it was possible to decide on the spot certain things which would have been difficult for officials to decide on the spot, which would have required a great deal of communication and clarification for someone who was a long distance away. One of the things which was in my mind and which I thought might cause difficulty before I went to Austria was that we might not have enough real estate to deal adequately with the problem. I had on one or two occasions impressed this point on my officials.


Mr. Nicholson:: Real estate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said real estate and I meant real estate, premises in which people could sit down while waiting for applications to be dealt with. Our office in Vienna is, as are all our offices, maintained as
662	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration economically as possible. This office happens to be on the fourth or fifth floor, or on both floors of an office building in Vienna in which there is a small lift which will carry about two people and a stairway going around the lift, which is fine if you have six or seven people going into a building in an hour. On the Monday morning after I arrived in Vienna there were over 100 people at the door of that building, I was informed, at five o'clock in the morning; I was not there but I was told. At the time I was finishing my breakfast at the hotel, at about nine o'clock, the manager of our office came to see me and said, I do not think that you ought to make your visit to the office for a while yet because it is impossible to get into the building, the stairways are jammed, the lift is jammed and it is impossible to move.
I said that this was really exactly what I expected. I felt that the real problem would not be a lack of personnel and probably not even a lack of doctors nor a lack of transport to bring the people to Canada, but that the real problem would be a lack of space in which to deal with applicants. I said that I thought there was every reason why I should go at once to examine the situation. In the meantime the police had persuaded the people to move back so that it was possible to enter the building. We immediately got in touch by telephone with someone who had a dance hall or a similar building a few miles away which had been used by a shipping company to make arrangements for the transport of a group of Hungarians who were coming to Canada later. I said that this place should be rented for the rest of the month. We finally managed to get hold of somebody who had some authority over the place and told him we were coming along in a car to take over and that we would discuss the rent afterwards. By 11.30 our officials were actually processing people in that building, having hired two or three buses to bring them a couple of miles across the town from the regular office to this place.
The same difficulties occurred with respect to having a staging point where these people could wait until transport was available to bring them to Canada. There was also the problem of getting shipping space. We had an airlift which of course was very helpful in getting some people moving quickly, but to move any large numbers it was obviously preferable to have shipping. Mr. Jacobsen from the inter-governmental committee on European migration came to Vienna and met me at noon on that Monday and we made arrangements right there and then for enough ships for about 5,000 Hungarians.


During the course of the morning, just before lunch, I had seen the Austrian minister of the interior for half an hour and had sought to impress upon him the importance of making one camp available in Austria for people who were coming to Canada so that they could be kept together, and so that they would be available, and we would know where they were when the transport was available. Of course, this camp was not to have been run by the Canadian government and it was not even originally thought that it would be operated by Canadians at all. It was to be under the general charge of ICEM, if I may abbreviate the rather long name of that organization, and we were told the barracks at Wiener Neustadt might be made available. Incidentally, I understand these were the barracks where Marshal Tito many years ago did his military training when he was in the army of the Austrian empire.
This place had been left rather a shambles by the Russians. I insisted on going out to see it. I had been told that it was all ready to receive people, that it had beds, mattresses, a kitchen and other essentials. Well, there were a few beds and a few straw mattresses. There were no windows and there was no heating. I had been told there was a kitchen but nobody could find the key to the door. It was pretty clear that it would take quite a lot of elementary rehabilitation before people could be put in it at all in very cold weather, and it was cold. We did get things in train to get that done and it was occupied about ten days later.
It did not seem to me, after that, that there was much more I could usefully do in Vienna; because ihy experience is that ministers are all very well in their way, but once questions of policy are settled it is very much better to leave the officials alone to get on with the work instead of remaining under foot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Better for the minister to get out of the way.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I got out of the way.
This story has been told before in other places, but I think I should like to place it on Hansard. When I arrived in Vienna on Saturday afternoon, one of the first things I was told was that there was a faculty of forestry of one of the Hungarian universities which had come in toto across the boundary into Austria and that the dean of the faculty had approached our ambassador a day or two before to discuss with him the possibility of their coming to Canada. I must say that this rather fired my imagination, and during the evening while I was dining with the Austrian foreign minister I kept thinking of

this faculty and how it could be dealt with and dealt with expeditiously.
Finally, late that evening I sent a telegram to my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, and a telegram to my wife asking my wife to telephone me at an hour which was about the equivalent of seven o'clock in Vienna and the minister a couple of hours later.


Mr. Sinclair:: You might point out I was in Vancouver.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Fisheries was in Vancouver and that was why I felt I ought to get in touch with my wife because I could get in touch with her at a much earlier hour than I could get through to the Minister of Fisheries on account of the three-hour difference in time. It is quite complicated when you are telephoning between Vienna and Vancouver. By the most extraordinary coincidence-it is a coincidence if you are using the trans-Atlantic telephone service-my wife did call me at seven o'clock on Sunday evening. I suggested to her that she get in touch with the Minister of Fisheries in Vancouver and ask him if he could not make arrangements to have this faculty moved to British Columbia and affiliated with the university and make provision for shelter for them there and let me know before midnight. And he did that. I do not think that sort of thing has been done very often.
I may say that on Sunday evening last these professors and students passed through Ottawa. I believe they are now in Abbotsford and that their next stage is to go to Powell River where they are to set up housekeeping for a while and learn English.
When I had felt that I had done everything I reasonably could in Vienna I left by motor car about eight o'clock in the evening and drove about 200 miles into western Austria. I slept in a small hotel and next morning went on to the place where these students were. I put to them the offer that my colleague had passed to me the day before and after a good deal of discussion back and forth during which I tried to explain the virtues of British Columbia-


James Sinclair: Easy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and some of the advantages there would be for them and for us I went away with their acceptance of the offer. I also discovered when I got to this place near Salzburg where they were staying that there were in addition somewhere between 100 and 150 other university students, students of mining engineering, oil engineering, geology and various other sciences, and several professors, who also expressed interest
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in coming to Canada. They expressed a desire to be together in Canada and I told them I would endeavour to find some place where they could go and be together. I could make no promise but I told them I would see what I could do. I said that I did not think it would be reasonable to suggest that they should also go to British Columbia and that I thought it would be to some other place.
As soon as I could do so, I got in touch with my colleague, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, (Mr. Hellyer) and arranged with him to have one of these students go to Toronto. I may say that my hon. friend put him up in his own house and looked after him for about two weeks so that he might look around and see what might be possible. The hon. gentleman got in touch with the president of the University of Toronto. He also got in touch with a number of prominent businessmen in Toronto, and a very generous offer was made for the reception of these professors and students.
Meanwhile I had also communicated with the chancellor of my own university, the University of Manitoba, about these students at a time when I was not quite sure where they might go. When I arrived in Paris a few days later I had a telephone call from Mr. Sifton and the premier of Manitoba, who were together. They had thought that this group represented a complete faculty and they made a most generous offer, for which I personally shall always be grateful, and of which I shall always be proud, to bring this group of students and professors to Manitoba and look after them completely for a certain period.
In the meantime news reports about this group of students had got out in Canada and we also had offers from Ottawa University, Laval University and several other places where there were not actually universities but where people hoped that this group of students might be the nucleus for something. All these offers did pose a bit of a problem. The young student who had come here as the spokesman of the students visited the various universities. I felt the only way to do was to have him visit the universities, compare the offers and communicate with the other students, and the decision they finally made was to go to Toronto. I may say that this group of students has either arrived in Toronto or will arrive there before the end of the day.


An hon. Member:: They arrived this
morning.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to add, though I am breaking my narrative by saying this,
664	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that there are also a good number of other students in Vienna, and elsewhere in Austria, who are seeking to come to Canada or the United States in order to complete their studies, and there are at the present time about 100 oi them in Montreal. The national conference of Canadian universities has set up a committee to review the qualifications of these students and to examine all the offers of assistance which have been received, in the hope, as far as possible, of finding offers of assistance that will fit with the qualifications of the persons concerned, with a view to having them placed in various universities throughout the country. I do not know whether the number of offers received is as yet equal to the number of students who are in Canada. That is one reason why I felt I would like to say something here about the situation, in the hope that my words might go beyond this chamber and perhaps might not, in all cases, fall on entirely deaf ears. It does seem to me that in the light of all the concern that was being expressed in this country only a few short months ago as a result of that very interesting conference at St. Andrews, it would be a very unfortunate thing if we in Canada missed the opportunity of getting young people who are almost completely trained-people who have only to learn one of the official languages of this country and who, because most of them are quite bright, could probably do that in a few months by modern intensive methods. It would, as I say, be a pity if we did not allow ourselves to take advantage of this opportunity to enrich our country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I will return to my narrative and shall try to make it brief.
I had announced, of course, at the very beginning of this movement of Hungarian refugees, that all our offices in Europe would give priority to applications from these people. After I had seen what I did see in Vienna-the fact that at the time I was there there were 70,000 of these refugees still in Austria, and that the numbers entering every day were at least equal to the numbers taken away-it seemed to me that we should not take refugees, except sponsored cases, from any of the countries of secondary refuge while the problem in Austria was so acute. I felt it would be desirable to see what the situation was in the offices in the neighbouring countries, and I wanted, moreover- though this is not strictly relevant to the present discussion-to see what the prospects were in these countries for immigration this year.
I found in Germany that the German government had set no limit on the number of refugees they were willing to take, but


they were having difficulty in finding accommodation for them. However, they did want to keep them all because they have an acute shortage of labour. In these circumstances I gave instructions that no visas were to be issued except to those refugees who had Canadian sponsors who were prepared to look after them.
In Holland, where I went next, I found that the government of The Netherlands had agreed to take 3,000 and keep them in the country, and they did not want these people disturbed. But they did feel that they had room to give temporary refuge to 2,000 more, and they had apparently made some representations to Ottawa, as well as to Washington and Canberra about this situation. I had thought of the same idea as appeared to be in their minds while I was at Bonn the night before, and when I proposed this plan to the Dutch minister he said: "We have already suggested that to your government." We had some discussion during the afternoon and then he came to dine at the embassy. I was able to get my colleague, the Minister of Finance on the telephone, and we agreed it would be quite within the terms of reference under which I was acting if I undertook to move to Canada between the 1st of March and midsummer at least 3,000 from Holland. The Dutch came to the conclusion that they could only find shelter for 2,000, and we made an arrangement under which that number of people are being moved to Holland now. The first 500 have already arrived in Holland. These 2,000 will begin coming to Canada in Dutch ships in small numbers after the 1st of March and until the end of June.
This arrangement seems to me to have the great advantage of getting 2,000 more people out of Austria reasonably quickly and also of keeping them in Europe during the winter when, as I do not need to remind any hon. member, it is very difficult for us to accommodate large numbers of new people in Canada.
I next went to Belgium, where I found that the situation was somewhat similar to the situation in Germany. They were not able to take an unlimited number of refugees, but they wanted to keep those they had. They had employment for them. The decision we took in this case, therefore, was that from then on we would accept only sponsored cases.
When I got to Paris I found that the situation in France was really very difficult. I think that, perhaps, hon. members may be interested to know why. The French, with the characteristic generosity in humanitarian matters which that country has always shown, had agreed to accept Hungarian refugees

without any limit as to numbers, and . about
8,000	or 9,000 of them had already arrived in France. The only places in which they could be lodged quickly were military barracks, and any hon. member who has had experience of French barracks knows there are more hospitable places in the world than the average caserne. Some of these barracks were also occupied by French troops; there were sentries on duty, and some of the refugees got the impression that they had left one prison in Budapest to go to another prison in France. This impression was intensified by the most unfortunate kind of communist propaganda, so much so that when I met the minister of the interior, under whose department these people are being cared for, he asked me to get Canadians to visit these camps to tell the people there that France was not a communist country; that it was not a "people's democracy" but a real democracy. The French wanted these people to stay, and wanted them to work, but would have no objection to their going away to any other country if that country would take them. He asked me to accept some immediately as a token of the truth of this.
Well, under the policy of priority I have enunciated earlier we had agreed to take a certain number of them, and I naturally did not countermand anything that had been done; but I explained that I did not really think it would be proper to take refugees from France, a country which was able to look after them, while leaving such a great burden on Austria. I felt the best we could do would be to send our officials round as quickly as possible, and indicate that we would come later with teams and give people visas that would be valid after April 1. By that time, it seemed to me, we would be able to absorb them in Canada: by that time, also, we hoped there would be a clarification of the situation in Austria. In any event the problem in Austria itself would not be so great during the summer months. This was very acceptable to the French government, and we agreed to take up to 3,000 providing the French would take a corresponding number from Austria in the interval, and that policy is now being worked out.
When I reached England I found that the situation was not quite as bad as in France, but it was very nearly so. Britain had had to suspend the actual movement of refugees because there were no places readily available for accommodation. The British government and people had made a magnificent effort; they had moved 12,000 people to the United Kingdom, 6,000 of them in about three days by a really drastic airlift which was going on while I was actually in Vienna. But they were finding a lot of difficulty of one kind or
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration another in that many of these people claimed they had been promised they could go to the United States or Canada. They were very disappointed when they found they were still in Europe. I recall particularly hearing of one group who were taken to Scotland-I am sure the hon. member for Greenwood would be interested in this-and when they asked where they were they were shown Scotland on the map. They said Oh, this is too close to Russia; we want to get across the Atlantic at once.
In any event, our high commissioner had been approached by the British government to ascertain if we would start taking some of these people to Canada right away. We arranged a meeting with the people who were actually looking after the refugees-they were voluntary agencies exclusively-and with the home office which had official charge of them. While I was not able to conclude an agreement while I was there I did make an offer which was accepted a day or two after I returned to Canada. Our offer was to take 5,000 from the United Kingdom after April 1 on the understanding that the British would, as quickly as possible, resume taking refugees from Austria and would take a corresponding number. This understanding was arrived at in good faith and I am sure will be carried out by both sides.
While I was abroad I had arranged for the transportation to Canada, between the time I was there and the end of January, of 9,000 to 10,000 Hungarian refugees. I felt that it would not be prudent or sensible for me to go beyond that until I returned to Ottawa and found out the response that was being made and how things were being organized or until I had an opportunity to consult with my colleagues and determined what they felt would be a reasonable flow to maintain during the winter months. As soon as possible after my return to Ottawa I consulted my colleagues and I recommended that we should make immediate arrangements for another
2,000	to come by sea in February and for the maintenance of the Maritime Central flights. This was the only Canadian company that was willing to continue these flights beyond January 1 because both T.C.A. and C.P.A. had other commitments for which their aircraft would be required. It was understood also that, as soon as we had some experience as to how these people were going to be placed and how we could distribute them throughout the country, we would consider taking more.
It began to appear to me early in January, while I was still recovering from the effect of having had a chip taken off my shoulder in the hospital, that we could quite easily

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration take another 1,000 people by sea in late January and February, so another thousand was added to the number. More recently my colleagues authorized me to go ahead and make arrangements for another 2,000 to come to Canada in March. I should say that in addition to these numbers there are always a certain number of sponsored cases that are being handled in small numbers by ordinary airlines and by ordinary sea passages which, week after week, do mount up to something. Our best estimate at the moment is that we will have more than 15,000 Hungarian refugees in Canada by the end of February, and that we will have between 2,000 and 3,000 more coming in March. Then, we will still have these 10,000 that are being staged in the three countries I have mentioned.
This does not mean at all that we are going to stop taking people from Austria after March. Our position is, as it has been throughout in this matter, that we intend to take these people as long as they want to come here and it looks as though we can find accommodation for them and, in a reasonable time, find work for them. We are going to take them as rapidly as we think they can be reasonably readily absorbed. I think it would be imprudent to try to make hard and fast arrangements too far in advance. We do intend to follow that course.
I should like to indicate very briefly, if I am not taking up too much of the time of the committee, sir, what the proportion of those coming to Canada is compared with the overall situation so far as Hungarian refugees are concerned.


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I might take the opportunity provided at this moment to advise the minister that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the minister leave to continue?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will say a word and then the minister can continue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. member for Kamloops. I shall try not to exceed my time again, sir. There have been approximately 170,000-I should like hon. members just to consider that figure for a moment-[DOT] about half of the population of metropolitan Ottawa, of these Hungarian refugees enter Austria since November 4. They have entered a country of between six million and seven million people, a poor country and a country that had very little surplus accommodation. About 100,000 of these refugees have left Austria for other countries. The largest single group has gone to the United States. There have been, as I think hon. members


probably know, 6,500 admitted to the United States as immigrants and 15,000 admitted as parolees. Do not ask me to explain what a parolee is because I am not an expert on United States immigration matters. I sincerely hope, and I am inclined to believe, that the United States is going to take more. But up to now, that is what they have done, and that is not as large a number as we are definitely committed to take. We are committed to take over 25,000 already.
I should think that next after the United States would be the British, and they have taken about 12,000. This will be about the total number they will take unless there is some big change in policy, because what they are taking from now on is merely a matter of substitution. The French and the Germans have still put no upper limit on the number they will take. About 10,000 have gone to France and about 10,000 to Germany. Other countries have taken a considerably smaller number. At the moment the only country that is taking any considerable number of people out of Austria is Canada, either by direct movement to Canada or indirectly. Measured in terms of numbers, therefore, we have committed ourselves already to take between 1/6 and 1/7 of those who have come into Austria.
In terms of the monetary commitments that we have made so far in connection with this matter, assuming that the house agrees to this estimate, we will have spent proportionately very much more than any other country, including the United States; not absolutely, but proportionately more. I believe it is necessary to say these things, not because I want to suggest we have done too much or that we have done all we could or should do, but I would suggest that if we are going to view this problem in anything like its proper proportions it is only fair to the Canadian taxpayers who are paying for this movement that they should know what they are getting and what they are paying.
I should now like to say a word or two about something which is really a good deal more relevant to the estimate here, and that is the problem of settlement. We have had the most magnificent co-operation from voluntary organizations all over this country and I cannot speak too highly of them. There have been times when I think all of us have felt, everybody connected with the movement, that there could be and should be a little more co-ordination, but I have taken the view that it is not the proper function of the immigration department to try to organize that co-ordination on a national basis. The problems of settlement are local

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
problems all over the country and much better results will be obtained through proper local initiatives. We have tried to co-operate with everybody who is willing to help. We have tried to make every suggestion we could about the most effective way of organizing that co-operation but we have not tried to run the show. We have tried to fit our activities into the voluntary activities. I think that is the right way to do it.
One or two misconceptions have arisen as a result of an agreement we made with the government of Saskatchewan, which was made by my colleague, the Minister of Finance, who was acting for me while I was abroad and for which we are very grateful to the government of Saskatchewan. It was a businesslike arrangement made in a businesslike way. Under that arrangement we did agree to pay to the government of Saskatchewan $3 a day for each of the refugees while they were in the provincial reception centres. Because of this, and because we have agreed to do something similar in other provinces where reception centres are set up, if they are needed, I am told that a misconception has arisen in certain parts of this country which I should like to clear up now, namely, that every Hungarian gets $3 a day as soon as he comes to the country. I am told there are places where that is widely believed.
Well, it is not true at all; they are not getting anything. The money is paid to the provincial government, or to whoever is operating the reception centre, for the services rendered in that centre. And where we provide subsistence, as we do for Hungarians, like other immigrants who cannot support themselves in the first year in the country, we do not pay money to the immigrant receiving the subsistence, we pay the bills and we do not pay $3 a day. We get it done just as cheaply as we can get it done respectably, and will continue to do so. In fact, nothing is being done for the Hungarian refugees that is not done for other immigrants once they land in Canada. It is true that they get their way paid to the place where they come to settle. That is the only respect in which they are given treatment different from that of any other immigrants.
Another misconception that has arisen, and it was given a good deal of unnecessary currency, I think, by one or two people whose activities seemed to me to be almost mischievous-was that we were giving to those refugees free health care which was being denied to Canadians.


Clarence Gillis: That is true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, it is not true at all.


Clarence Gillis: For one year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it is not true for one year. The hon. member for Cape Breton South is not aware of the real facts. Hungarians and other immigrants are treated in the same way as Canadians are; if they are indigents they do not go without treatment. But if they have an income they pay their bills like anybody else, and that is the situation. We do not go around looking for bills to pay, either.
I do not think it would be the sense of this house, or the sense of the country, that we should treat immigrants better than we treat our own people. I do not think it would be the sense of the house or the sense of the country that they should be treated worse. These are people who have come

and I am not referring here specifically to Hungarian refugees but to immigrants generally-to this country and whom we have accepted, and given a landing to, on the assumption that they are going eventually to become fellow citizens of ours. I think the sooner we treat them on a basis of equality the better.
The reason the federal government does certain of these things in the first year is that, for many kinds of welfare services in this country, a year is the ordinary period required to acquire domicile within local jurisdictions. That is the reason it is done and the only reason. I felt it would be useful to say these things in the hope that the facts may catch up with some of the rumours.
We are asking in this item for $9 million. It would be optimistic to think that this $9 million was going to cover the whole cost of this operation. We had certain money. I notice the hon. member for Perth, who was here a moment or two ago, is not in the chamber just at this moment. During the discussion of the regular estimates I think he accused me of padding one of the items and I said at that time I hoped that the amount would never be used because it was there for an emergency. Well, sir, unfortunately, unhappily, tragically, the emergency happened and we were very glad to have that money because it has tided us over pretty nearly until now.
We are asking for another $9 million now and we are spending out of our regular votes and using our regular services for these refugees, and I do not think we can begin to estimate all the costs there will be in this movement before the autumn. But it will be considerably more than $9 million and I think it is only fair to tell the committee that right now.
I do think-and I imagine that every hon. member who has seen at least some of these

668	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Hungarian refugees also thinks-that we are going to get full value for our money. I want to say this. I think there will be some people among these Hungarian refugees who will be undesirable; I think there will be some bad eggs among them; I think that is inevitable and I think it is better to face that fact right now. I do hope, too, that the few cases

because I believe there will be few- that are disappointing will not be unduly magnified, at any rate, by responsible people. I am sure they will not be by any member of the house. The great majority of these people are-if I can judge people at allbright and vigorous. They are intelligent and a good proportion of them have some skill. The great handicap they have is that very few can speak either English or French. When they have got over that handicap I believe they will be as good immigrants as any, as good settlers and ultimately as good citizens as any we have ever had and I think in the long run they will enrich this country.
There is just one other thing, sir. While again this is not quite strictly relevant, yet I think I ought to say a word about it. There has been a good deal in the newspapers lately about the transportation problem that is likely to arise in the late spring. We anticipated this problem in the immigration department away back last August, long before this Hungarian problem added to it, and we have been in touch with steamship companies and the air lines with respect to it ever since. I had a conference with a number of steamship companies when I was in London and we have had a number of other conversations, and we are going to have to take special and extraordinary measures to move the regular flow of immigration which is going to be larger than usual this year, apart from the Hungarians. But I believe we are going to find the means to do it and certainly we are going to make every conceivable effort to find the means to do it because, as my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated more than once, we have a bigger program of capital expansion this year than ever before, and one of the biggest shortages that we will experience later this year is almost certainly going to be a shortage of manpower and we want to get all we can in order to maintain the expansion we have had in the last few years.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure there will be no one in the house who will not agree with the purpose for which the $9 million is being requested in the supplementary estimate, though there may be and I think there properly are some criticisms and quite serious suggestions that could be made

as to the method by which the matter has been handled to date and how it should be handled in the future.
If I voice some of those criticisms I want to say at the outset that I hope it is not going to be taken as indicating any disagreement with the purpose for which the money is sought and for which the sum the minister referred to has already been spent, because I am quite sure all hon. members of the house as well as the country generally agree that not only will these people coming from Hungary enrich our country, as has been the case with all the other immigrants we have received, but it is Canada's duty as a nation of the world to make some contribution to the solution of this problem.
We have some criticisms to offer, though, and they are serious criticisms; and if I say that in listening to the minister today, in listening to him on previous occasions, and in reading reports of his trip to Vienna one of the criticisms that has occurred to us is that perhaps there has been a little too much use of the first person singular and a little too much suggestion of personal credit for what is being done, that is perhaps a minor matter and not one of the serious criticisms we have in mind.
I think probably the best place to start is the point where the minister concluded, and that is with respect to the settlement arrangements here in Canada. I am sure that all on this side of the house feel that, except in so far as the difficulties of the situation make it necessary, these immigrants should not be dealt with in any way different from normal immigrants, and should not be given any special privileges over and above Canadians. I deliberately used the qualification "except in so far as the special circumstances of this movement make it necessary" because this surely cannot be regarded as an ordinary movement of immigrants.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, quite.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has pointed out that in this movement, if in fact it is not to be properly described as a crash operation,
170,000	persons have already fled from Hungary into Austria, a country very much smaller, very much poorer and very much more crowded than Canada and many other countries in the western civilization, and that we cannot leave Austria to grapple with that situation too long because it must be dealt with as an operation calling for immediate action. I also want to say that I accept the fact that there were bound to be mistakes, shortcomings and deficiencies in the handling

of the problem to date, and it would not be fair or responsible not to accept that fact and to criticize the government because they tried to do something even before they had satisfactorily worked out all the details. As a matter of fact my criticism rather goes the other way in that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have been too timid.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, but having been willing to accept the risks and to face the fact that it is going to create problems, the government is not doing enough now to solve the problems which have been created. I think it was inescapable that there would be problems, particularly concerning the reception and settlement in Canada of these people, but I am not at all satisfied that enough is now being done to meet those problems. I do not accept the minister's statement that it is not the proper function of the immigration department to try to co-ordinate the problem on a national basis.
In the ordinary course of immigration, which under the policy of the government certainly cannot be said to be overly vigorous, the reception and settlement arrangements for immigrants can probably best be made on a local basis. Where you have an emergency movement such as this I do not think it is at all sensible to suggest that the reception and settlement arrangements should best be left to be handled on a local basis, and that there is no responsibility on the part of the department to co-ordinate them on a national basis. That is exactly thf responsibility that exists in a situation such as this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair, and perhaps we could save a lot of time by not quarrelling about terms. As far as settlement is concerned, that responsibility is accepted by my department. I was talking about reception and welfare and things that are done incidental to the arrival and between the time of arrival and settlement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I will go on from there to say that here again I think we must face the fact that these immigrants are probably not going to be able to fit into the stream of Canadian employment, activity and life as quickly as the great majority of normal immigrants who come to Canada. We must remember that to a large extent these people are not coming to Canada in the full sense of the words "of their own free will". They are coming as the result of a tragedy which occurred in Hungary, to use the minister's words, and many of them are coming entirely unprepared, never having thought before of the possibility of emigrating. In
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration many cases they are coming without having at their disposal the means which many normal immigrants have, and so it cannot be expected that they will be fitted into the ordinary pattern of Canadian life as quickly as the majority of normal immigrants.
For that reason it seems to me we have to accept a greater responsibility for looking after these people than is normally the case, and that is necessary not only in fairness to them but I believe it is essential in protecting the legitimate interests of Canadians who are already here. I do not think it is fair to the Hungarian refugee to turn him out too quickly into the normal stream of Canadian employment, nor would it be fair to those employers who are supposed to accept him or his fellow workers, the employees who are interested in working alongside him and interested also in the job he will be filling. While we accept that there will be shortcomings in the initial phases of this movement, as I have said, my criticism is that I do not see sufficient signs of action being taken at this time to deal with the problem and remove those shortcomings.
I have not seen a great many of these immigrants myself but I have seen some of them, and I have spoken to others who have seen many more. One of the things which I do not think is being attended to nearly rapidly enough is the problem of education in our languages. Those whom I say arrived in Canada with an immigration sheet, a list of phrases and words in Hungarian and English; one sheet, that was all. Up to the time I left them we had not been able to find out what plans were made to provide them with a more adequate phrase sheet, or to organize classes for them where they might learn the language.
I do not suppose that there exists a great quantity of Hungarian-English dictionaries in Canada. It seems to me that sort of thing is one of the responsibilities which this department should meet; that is, the provision to the local welfare organizations of an adequate supply of material, whether it be mimeographed sheets or printed books, which would enable the instruction of Hungarians in the English and French languages. There should be more than normal attention paid to the organization of classes for these people.
Remember that the ordinary stream of immigration to Canada in the last few years has averaged, I think, somewhere just under 150,000. Now we are committed to take an additional 28,000, and it is quite possible that we will take at least 30,000 or 40,000 in one year; that is one-fifth more than our normal intake, all in one group. It is going to take more than the normal effort to instruct these

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration people in the Canadian approach, Canadian skills and Canadian way of life, let alone the English or French languages. I do not think that responsibility can be left to the local citizens' welfare organizations, Canadian citizenship societies and the other organizations which normally make themselves responsible to a considerable extent for that work.
Here it is obvious, I believe, that the department must accept a greater responsibility itself and make greater efforts to assist these people; otherwise these refugees will not be able to fit into the Canadian pattern as they should. Here we have what you might call quite properly a crash operation in which the department are going to have to accept a great deal more responsibility and expend a great deal more effort than they have done up to the present.
That raises the question of camps or reception facilities. Here we are in the winter months accepting a very large addition to the normal flow of immigrants, at a time when employment opportunities in Canada are normally much more restricted than in the summer months. I do not think it is sufficient to say we will leave it to the generosity of private individuals to receive and care for these people until such time as employment opportunities increase in the summer. That may be a period of up to six months or more.
I think the department must make an assessment of the situation and endeavour to find accommodation, even if it be in the nature of temporary camps, and I do not mean a tent camp or anything of that sort. There are areas in Canada where such buildings exist and where the instruction of these refugees would be facilitated a great deal more than if they were scattered about in individual homes, where this type of work is so much more difficult to co-ordinate.
I think there also must be more attention given to informing these men and women when they arrive just what plans are made and what facilities are available for their instruction and their placement, because those whom I have seen and spoken to were warmly received by the Canadians into whose homes they went; they were marvellous people to have. As the minister stated, most of them had skills. All they wanted was not to be a burden on the people in whose homes they found lodging. Their greatest concern was that they did not want to take charity; they wanted to be able to earn their way in Canada as soon as possible. They were almost desperate about finding out what arrangements had been made for their instruction. The people with whom they were living tried to assure them that they would be welcome 

there as long as they wanted to stay, but the more Canadians tried to show them that they need not worry for the time being, that they would be glad to have them stay, the more the Hungarians felt that Canadians were trying to show them charity. They appreciated the charity, but they did not want to come to this country and be accused of expecting nothing but charity.
Something must be done to make available much more rapidly than is the case now facilities for instructing these people and fitting them into our pattern of Canadian life. I do not mean to fit them in more rapidly, but rather to start more rapidly to instruct them as to how to go about fitting in.
Another reason I am convinced that the provision of accommodation is a responsibility which we must accept is because of the growing problem in Austria. Unless we are able to receive them they will pile up in the camps in Austria. I have not been there; the minister has. Mr. Michael Barkway, one of the members of the press gallery, has also been there; he and the minister do not seem to agree in their opinion as to conditions in Austria and Canadian responsibility in the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there is any disagreement between us as to the conditions in Austria.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad to hear that. Then I take it that the disagreement is in what we must do about relieving conditions more rapidly than is being done now. Certainly Mr. Barkway suggests that unless something is done to keep the stream moving quickly, not only will Hungarian refugees themselves suffer from sad disillusionment, which would be a bad start, but the whole cause of freedom will suffer because the communist propagandists in that area will then be able to say that all this talk about the western nations receiving these people is only talk. If the refugees were left to languish in Austria there would then be a condition in Austria which would be disastrous. Therefore I do not think it is enough for us just to say that we are taking more than the United States in proportion. We have proportionately more room than the United States.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not agree with that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think we should take pride in that fact and leave it at that. We have to assess our own capabilities to deal with the matter and then fulfil the obligation which that assessment imposes upon us.
While we are happy that the $9 million is being asked for, I do not think it is going to be wisely spent unless some greater

responsibility is accepted by the federal department of immigration with respect to the reception, settlement and accommodation arrangements here, and particularly the instruction arrangements here. I believe that now is the time to plan those arrangements, so we may not only continue but in fact speed up the movement to Canada of those refugees we are prepared to take. I think our efforts should be directed to getting over here as quickly as possible the number that we decide should be accepted in Canada. Another question which occurs to me-it is a matter of detail, but I would like the minister to deal with it-is whether we are accepting refugees in Austria solely through our immigration office or whether we are going out into the camps-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did answer that the other day in reply to a question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister must expand on the subject. I know he referred to it. This is one of the points that concerned Mr. Barkway at the time of his visit. What drive is being made to go right into the camps and set up the necessary facilities there, and show these people that we mean what we say when we offer to provide a home for them in Canada? That would seem to me to call for an increase in staff, because it would mean manning two offices instead of one. Can the minister not tell us the details of the work being done there?
The other question I have is one of a general nature. What is the total number of refugees who are expected to move into Austria, and is it expected that the movement will continue at the same pace as in the past? At one time I understand that the refugee figure amounted to about 1,000 a day. Has anyone attempted, or is it felt that anyone could attempt, to estimate the total number of refugees who may be involved? What is the estimate of the number Canada feels she can take and that will be available to us?
Those, I think, are questions which should be answered now in order that the problems of settlement may be discussed in the light of that information. Whatever the problem may be, as I have said-and I think this is the point that requires to be emphasized- this cannot be regarded as a normal movement, and the responsibilities of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for coordinating the reception and settlement of these people are far greater than the minister seems to indicate he is prepared to accept.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing the feed grain item this afternoon the Minister of Finance seemed to think we
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration had roamed far afield. I agree with him. In this case he will have to thank his colleague sitting behind him for initiating a wide-open debate on immigration. I have a few words to say on this subject; I shall try not to ask for additional time.
The minister made a very provocative speech. He always does, but I always excuse him on the ground of political immaturity. He will learn in time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am getting pretty old.


Clarence Gillis: You are not doing too badly. The first thing I would like to clear up is the statement he made that some people, in trying to be mischievous, had created, or tried to create, the impression that medical expenses were paid for immigrants. That is not true. You made the statement that from time to time statements were made that created the impression that medical expenses were paid for immigrants. ,


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could I correct that?


Clarence Gillis: That is exactly what you said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I said was that it was said they were given free health care. This statement was made by a well known broadcaster in Toronto over and over again, and it just isn't true.


Clarence Gillis: I made a few remarks on that very point in the house. I do not want to be classed with the mischievous. Are you listening? That is the trouble with the minister; that is why he is so uninformed. He makes his own speech, then closes his ears and carries on a private discussion while somebody else is trying to clarify his mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize. I am a little deaf in one ear, unfortunately.


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Fisheries was bothering you. On that particular point I have stated in this house, with respect to medical care, that immigrants who come into this country and who have no employment are housed in a hostel in Montreal by the Department of Labour. That is what is suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops should be done now, with regard to the Hungarians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That hostel is being used right now.


Clarence Gillis: Well, in that hostel, to those without employment, medical care is provided.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: Without a means test. Then when they leave the hostel and go into a province and find themselves in an indigent situation, provision is still made for their

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration health to be cared for. Let me give you this evidence. I have it in my hand. I was a member of the committee that examined the estimates of the Department of Labour in 1956, and I raised this very question in that committee because of an item which appeared in those estimates. I will read the questions and the answers. This is at page 536 of volume 12 of the minutes of that committee:


Clarence Gillis: Now, the agreement with the provinces with respect to medical expenses-there is quite a large item there?


Mr.   Dawson@: Yes.


Clarence Gillis: Do you spend the amount voted each year for that purpose?


Mr.   Dawson@: I think we did last year. You were talking about the agreement with the provinces?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Mr.   Dawson@: We had $135,000 appropriated for this purpose in the last fiscal year, and we spent $127,000.


Clarence Gillis: That would indicate that your hostel was operating at pretty near capacity, was it not?


Mr.   Dawson@: No, this is medical expense shared with the provinces after they have been placed in employment and in their future homes.


Clarence Gillis: A*Eter they have been placed?


Mr.   Dawson@: Yes, this has nothing to do with the medical attention at the hostel.
Then I wanted to know why they should pay medical expenses after they had secured employment. But that definitely proves that there is provision for all medical purposes for one year if people find themselves in indigent circumstances after they go to find employment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite correct; but if they are in employment and have the money to pay it is not provided. There is a means test, in other words. It is the same as the municipalities do for other indigents.


Clarence Gillis: Of course. I went on to point out that this is a national health insurance for immigrants-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely health insurance does not depend on indigence?


Clarence Gillis: That is health insurance not on a contributory basis. We are going to make it a little tougher for our own people.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, no; all indigents can get treatment.


Clarence Gillis: The Department of Labour has that arrangement; you may have other arrangements through your department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I make this point clear? This is all being transferred to my department in the next fiscal year. Up to now we have both handled it; they do it for one group and we do it for the rest.


Clarence Gillis: I was talking about what has been done up to now; I am not crystal-gazing into the future. When your estimates come before the house we will take a look at them.

With respect to the $9 million for the movement of Hungarians, of course having regard to the way in which the minister puts the matter-a strong humanitarian plea-no one disagrees with it. However, I have always felt that immigration should be a planned proposition. While we are obliged to move these people at the present time, personally I do not like young people running away from their country when it is in danger.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely-


Clarence Gillis: The minister said this when he was speaking.


An hon. Member:: Do you want them to stay and get shot?


Clarence Gillis: They were moved to England, and they did not want to stay in England because it was too close to Russia. They were moved to Scotland, and they did not want to stay in Scotland because it was to close to Russia. Where are they going to run from here?


Mr. Mclvor:: Ireland.


Clarence Gillis: That is an impression. The minister said that, and of course he reported what someone else said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: That is not a good reason for coming to Canada, and it is not a reason that should be advanced for taking them in here. I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops on the point he made with respect to a centre where these people could be sorted out. If they are permitted to come in here by the thousands, unscreened, not medically checked, and are dumped into the main stream of employment across the country, whether it be agriculture or the regular labour market, without some check being made, then I think it is bad planning. While you may not have the facilities to do it in Austria, I believe there should be a centre in Canada where they could be assembled, medically checked-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Every one of them is medically checked at centres in Canada before they go into the stream.


Clarence Gillis: That is fine; I am glad to hear it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: They are not kept there long enough.


Clarence Gillis: They should also be examined with regard to where in Canada they can make their best contribution. What are their skills? Where are you going to sena them? In my opinion that is not being done at the present time. I also warn the minister that people in many parts of Canada are questioning the advisability of throwing so many
JANUARY 25, 1957	G73
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
people into the general labour market. They are very seriously questioning it in my part of the country. I am asked the question a good many times, and maybe the minister can give me the definition; what is the difference between a refugee from the maritime provinces or some other part of Canada, and a war-scared refugee from Europe? One can get just as hungry as the other. I get letters from some who have gone to New Zealand, without any assistance from the Canadian government, some of them from my own home town.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know.


Clarence Gillis: Of course, because I wrote the minister on that subject and I got a very curt reply. Some time I will give him the answer, but I am not going to do it now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You mean to tell me you have had a short reply from the minister?


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you say "curt"? Surely you meant "courteous".


Clarence Gillis: Oh, no. I am not going to mix it up with this discussion, because I am not going to take very long. We have shifted people from the maritimes to British Columbia.


James Sinclair: It worked out very well.


Clarence Gillis: Very well indeed. We have also shifted people to different parts of Ontario. There are a lot of them. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River knows about that.


Mr. Benidickson:: That is working out well, too.


Clarence Gillis: I hear from them, and they are getting along fine. However, up to December 31 of last year there were arrangements whereby to some extent the expenses involved in moving such people could be taken care of. As of December 31 that legislation expired, and it has not been renewed. I mention this to the minister because I think he has just as much responsibility in the case of people who have to move possibly 4,000 miles within their own country. I mean people who have been war veterans and taxpayers, and who are obliged to become economic refugees from their own part of the country.


James Sinclair: They were attracted to British Columbia. They wanted to go there.


Clarence Gillis: You came down to recruit them because you knew where to get the best class of people in the world.


James Sinclair: Exactly. They have done very well, and lots more will go out.


Clarence Gillis: They have done very well. By the way, I had a letter a few days ago from the recruiter you sent down there, and it has worked out so well that he is going back for a few hundred more.


James Sinclair: Good.


Clarence Gillis: That is why I am saying to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that if there are 400 or 500 more who want to go out there to help develop and enrich British Columbia, the legislation that expired on December 31 might be re-enacted so that British Columbia might get the benefit of three or four hundred people from that part of the country. Incidentally, I do not like to see them move; but in view of the fact that the Gordon commission said "If, if, if, if", then should they move there should be some provision whereby the government will at least put them on a basis of equality with those who are coming here from other parts of the world.


James Sinclair: In the case of those particular people the company advanced their fares, and it is the same company that is taking the Hungarian forestry school.


Clarence Gillis: Those who went out there are refunding their fares to the company out of their wages.


James Sinclair: They are proud Scots. They want to pay their own way, as I would and you would, I hope.


Clarence Gillis: Definitely. Are you saying that the Hungarians are not proud Hungarians?


James Sinclair: I said "proud Scots".


Clarence Gillis: Well, the inference is there. I know you did not mean that.


James Sinclair: That is your inference.


Clarence Gillis: I mention that because I think we have as much responsibility in the case of the people about whom I am talking as we have in the case of people from outside Canada. I am not objecting to the people we are taking into Canada. I would say for the benefit of my generous, charitable, and sanctimonious friends to my right that we just cannot adopt a policy in North America of evacuating Europe because people there are afraid of Russia. I suggest that the minister should not pay any attention to people who talk that way. In the case of these people, however, there was nothing they could do but get out because of the circumstances that faced them. They had nothing but their bare hands.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the hon. member not realize that some of the best immigrants of the past have been people who left to avoid persecution?


Clarence Gillis: My ancestors did.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have you any quarrel with them for coming here?


Clarence Gillis: It does not put those who drove them out on a very high plane.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. We are not asking to have Russians come here. We are talking about Hungarians.


Clarence Gillis: Some of them were moved to Scotland and England, and they said they were too close to Russia. As far as I am concerned, that is not a very good reason for coming here.


John Cameron Pallett: Don't forget that is hearsay evidence.


Clarence Gillis: Of course. I heard it before I heard the minister say it here. I have heard that in other places.
Mr. Pallet!: Not from the Hungarians.


Clarence Gillis: While I may sound as if I am being critical about bringing these people into the country, I am one of the first to cry down that kind of reason for bringing them here. They came here because they were hungry, because they were overrun, because they had no medical attention, because they had nothing with which to fight. They were dumped into a little country completely unable to handle them. The only place in the world still large enough and free enough is Canada. There is lots of room here. The caution I am expressing is that we should not go overboard by reason of sentiment in the process of being charitable and generous, and not realize what is needed to protect our own people. I know that things are pretty bad in my part of the country. The Gordon commission did not paint a very bright picture. Our people may have to move.


John Cameron Pallett: It will improve now with Robert Stanfield.


Clarence Gillis: Stanfield cannot move the Atlantic ocean. We do not have the room for expansion. We are hemmed in by the ocean. We do not have the hinterlands of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and the other provinces. We are stuck there.
My main objective in rising at this time was to bring to the attention of the minister the lapse of the labour department legislation providing for the movement of people within Canada. I know that within the foreseeable future other people are going to have to be


shifted. There are pockets now not only in Nova Scotia but also in Ontario. Perhaps in a few years the northern part of Ontario will be in the same position as we are down in the maritimes today, if not worse.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister who knows about this is here now.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour has come in. I was just pointing out to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the fact that while we appreciate his request for a supplementary estimate in the amount of $9 million to assist in the movement of Hungarians the legislation in the Department of Labour that permitted your department to assist the movement of workers in Canada expired as of December 31. To the best of my knowledge it has not been renewed. I would suggest that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration get together to develop a policy on behalf of the government that would place the economic immigrant within the country on the same footing as those from other countries who are obliged to come here for various reasons.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, the very modest funds available in my department for assistance in the movement of workers from one part of Canada to the other have not expired. They can be renewed from one fiscal year to another by means of the estimates each year.


Clarence Gillis: I suggest the minister check that, because my information from Mr. Thompson, the director of that particular vote in my area, is that he has been notified that the legislation has expired and was not to be renewed so far as that particular area was concerned.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry, but I think I am at least 10 minutes late in getting up. The hon. member is now making use of an estimate of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to discuss legislation upon which really no action could be taken under the vote now before us.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Would I be permitted to clear up one point which has been left in the air?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think perhaps since I have allowed the hon. member for Cape Breton South to wander so far afield I should allow the minister to reply, but I think his reply should be extremely brief and, if I may put it this way, not provocative.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I try to be brief and unprovocative at all times, and I can be on this occasion. In brief this is the answer. Under the arrangements made for this particular purpose, which I do not need to go into, the

Minister of Labour has authority from time to time to decide whether certain areas in Canada are in such economic condition that he should be authorized to assist in moving persons from that area to another area in which they could find employment. There has been no change in that legislation and no change in the estimate, but the Minister of Labour has decided that in the recent past there has been no occasion to use any of that money in so far as Cape Breton is concerned.


Mr. Shaw:: Had you not interceded in defence of the rules, Mr. Chairman, I was going to suggest that if I were to be guided by precedent already established during this debate, I would find it utterly impossible to determine the bounds within which I must keep in the course of my observations. I know, Mr. Chairman, that traditionally it is the duty of the opposition to criticize. This is a privilege I would not take away from the opposition, nor would I do anything to discourage them even on this occasion. Moreover, I may say that if there is one minister in the House of Commons who can provoke criticism it is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
However, upon this occasion I find it extremely difficult to be very critical. I say that, Mr. Chairman, because of the fact that we are dealing with those who are the victims of probably one of the most tragic situations ever to occur in this world. We are dealing with babies, little children, mothers and others who have done two things. First, they have given this world one of the finest demonstrations it has ever witnessed of just how much people who have lost their freedom value it. Furthermore, this occurrence has been an indication to those of us who are free just what is our responsibility in retaining it. Second, we are dealing with people who have done more than all others to unmask communism and indicate to the world the true nature of that vicious force.
I agree with some of the things said by the hon. member for Kamloops, but after all we are dealing with an emergency; something which has happened suddenly; something that must be dealt with immediately. If some of these things were to occur in the course of our ordinary immigration policy, the handling of immigrants who come here under normal circumstances, then I too would be rather severely critical. I am not going to be critical here. I do not expect us to be able to handle these people in exactly the same way as we would handle normal immigrants.
The minister mentioned that, proportionately, Canada had already accepted more of 82715-43J
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration these Hungarian refugees than had the United States; that is undoubtedly true. I believe Canada is probably in a position to handle more of them than the United States will ever handle. I say that not from the standpoint of our ability or inability to finance them but because of the very nature of our country, economically and geographically, and the fact that we have been led to believe it is so extremely important for Canada to build up her population as rapidly as it is reasonably possible to do so.
Plainly I cannot subscribe to some of the observations of the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I rather fancied that perhaps I misunderstood them; I hope I did not, but I cannot be certain until I examine the record and determine exactly what he said. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I rose in order to ask the minister a question or two. I am merely seeking information. I wonder if his department is yet in a position to indicate the disposition of these Hungarian immigrants across Canada by provinces. I think we should have that information. Secondly, I should like to have information with respect to the age groups, the sexes, the professions, occupations and so on. I would appreciate having that. I feel that probably the house would benefit as a consequence of receiving it. I am sure if the minister has the information he would be pleased to put it on the record.
I am not going to take up more time. Last November we as a group endorsed what the government indicated to us it was prepared to do. We feel that, to be fair, they have done a pretty good job of it. We realize that there are a lot of difficulties to be ironed out. We feel, as I said, that the government has done a pretty good job of it; but we also feel that the provinces, cities, towns, municipalities, voluntary organizations and individuals also have done a pretty good job and are continuing to do so. We hope any bugs that are appearing will be removed, and we expect they will. Probably in a month or two we shall be in a better position to assess the whole situation, and if with respect to certain things we do appear to be mildly critical we can assure the minister it will only be because we would be justified in being so. It is too early in the game for hon. members to be advancing some of the criticisms to which we have already listened.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat on having some Christian common sense. I congratulate the government on the job they have done. They were certainly not slow or lazy; they jumped into the job
676	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration right at once, and I congratulate the government on sending the young minister over there to find out for himself, as he did. One thing I am surprised at is that the expert critic of the opposition has not been able to find more mistakes because of the vastness of the undertaking. But since Canada is a Christian country it is her duty to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and help those who are out of joint with the rest of the world.
I congratulate these refugees on the stand they have taken against Russia. It will live forever in the history of Hungary. We have a Hungarian committee in Fort William, as I mentioned before. We had the opportunity of taking a group of these refugees. Donald Clark and Son, of Port Arthur, who had bought the Great Lakes sawmill, had a number of houses that were formerly used to house Japanese who came from Vancouver and used the houses to shelter these people. The reception they received was certainly pleasing to the Hungarians. They were met by the mayors of both cities and by others, and they were well received and well fed. The clergy, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, representing this group, called on them. I know the majority of them are Roman Catholic, but that does not make any difference; they can be hungry, and they can be out of work.
Another thing is that many people thought there would be many communists among them. Anybody who has come out of Hungary under these circumstances is cured forever of being a communist. I congratulate the government and the young minister on the job they are doing, and hope they will keep on doing it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I think all hon. members were very interested in the minister's remarks. I found one thing he said very interesting, namely the reference he made to the group of students coming to Toronto today. I think he made reference to the fact that they had not yet landed but were going to do so. I am sorry the minister did not elaborate a little further on that particular subject, because many of us would like to know the number of students who are coming to Toronto; whether the government is going to pay for them or some private concern will pay for them; where they are going to stay while they are attending the university, and so on. I think we should like to hear about it from the human interest point of view.
The minister said these students are coming. I think some hon. members have heard stories about this arrangement. I have had some information which suggested that there


would be about 109 students arriving, and that a great deal of the expense of their education was going to be paid by the Ontario mining association. I would be very glad if the minister could confirm or deny it.
When the minister was dealing with this matter of the students he made reference to the hon. member for Davenport and the fine liaison work he had done to help them along. I think the minister may have been a little less than generous in not giving some credit to the Ontario government, particularly to the department of planning and development. It is my understanding that they also had quite a lot to do with this particular arrangement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not this particular one; in the reception of the Hungarians generally, yes, but not this particular one. It was the president of the university and a group of businessmen who were approached directly by the hon. member about this matter. With respect to the refugees generally, I give full credit to the Ontario government for what they have done.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That answers my question. The Ontario government actually had nothing to do with the mining students from Sopron University?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not in the early stages; I believe they have been very helpful lately.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There is one thing I would like to bring to the minister's attention now rather than do it privately, as ordinarily I probably would have done. I think it is something that should be brought to his attention and to the attention of the country generally because, while it is only one situation, I have no doubt it could be duplicated in a number of places. The situation I am going to refer to has arisen because of a misunderstanding which, if it were cleared up now, would probably save a lot of grief for a number of people in this country in the future.
I refer to a letter I received the other day from a constituent of mine. His name is Mr. John Gyurki. He lives in Woodstock, and is a Canadian citizen of Hungarian extraction. I quote two paragraphs from the letter which I think are important. They read as follows:
On December 14 last, I brought six members of my family to Canada from Hungary. To acquire sufficient funds to pay for their passage, I had to borrow money from the bank. I understood that the passage for refugees would be paid by the government, as pointed out in numerous newspaper clippings, some dated November 29 last. Two of these clippings are enclosed to you herewith.

I might say at this point that I shall refer to these clippings later. I continue with the letter:
In these clippings, the Honourable John W. Pickersgill stated that a decision had been made to grant free passage not only to those refugees yet to come, but to those already arrived or on route.
The next paragraph reads:
After inquiring about free transportation to Canada with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, I received a letter from them dated January 10 last, which I am enclosing. I cannot see any comparison between the contents of that letter and the newspaper clippings:	they just
don't correspond. I refer especially to the second paragraph of the letter.
I refer to the second paragraph of the letter which was sent to Mr. Gyurki, dated January 10 last, by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and it reads in part as follows:
I have your letter of January 4, 1957, enclosing six air contract tickets covering the transportation to Canada of five members of your family at a total cost of $1,035.
Free transportation to Canada in respect of Hungarian refugees does not apply where persons pay their own transportation to Canada or where the cost of their transportation is advanced by a friend or a relative in this country.
The remainder of the letter is not particularly relevant to this discussion. As a member of this house, Mr. Chairman, I understood that these were the regulations at the time, and I have no doubt that other hon. members had that understanding. But unfortunately the general public does not have the advantage of the sources of information that hon. members have, and very often- in fact most of the time-the public rely on what they read in the newspapers. I would like to refer to a couple of clippings which are enclosed in the letter. One is from the Toronto Star, dated November 29. It also contains a large picture of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and reads as follows:
Ottawa, November 29-Canada will not only open its gates to all Hungarian refugees who want to come here, but will provide their passage free, Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, told the House of Commons last night.
His announcement was greeted by cheers from all sections of the house, and welcomed by opposition speakers.
Until yesterday afternoon, the government had planned only to give the refugees "assisted passage", which was expected to be repaid.
Decision to give passage as a gift was made at a cabinet meeting yesterday afternoon, Mr. Pickersgill said. The decision applies not only to those yet to come, but to those who have already arrived or are en route.
I have another press clipping to which I shall refer very briefly. It is a Canadian Press dispatch which appeared under the same date line in the Woodstock daily Sentinel-Review. The quotation reads:
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration "It was decided," Mr. Pickersgill said, "that as almost all of these refugees have nothing they can bring with them except the clothes they are wearing, and, as many of them have little or no money, it was not reasonable to expect them to try to establish themselves in this country with a debt over their heads at the very start."
This policy of free passage would also apply to Hungarian refugees who have already had assisted passage to Canada-a small number as yet.
This is a very unfortunate situation, and there are probably a number of other people in the same situation as Mr. Gyurki of Woodstock. I was going to say there were others who had been victimized, but that word possibly has an unpleasant connotation. Doubtless there are others who have been misled by these press reports. Probably they should have made inquiries of the minister, but perhaps it was not possible to reach him because he might not have been available at the time. It is most unfortunate that these people should have borrowed money to bring to this country what in this case were not even close relatives, and relied on the press reports. As a result of having brought these Hungarians to Canada they are now in debt to the bank.
I am raising this point today in the hope that other people will not fall into the same trap, and I think the minister might consider as special cases those who went into debt in this way. Perhaps reimbursement could be made to these people who borrowed money in good faith in order to bring relatives and friends to Canada in an honest and sincere desire to be of help. I am not suggesting that the minister created this impression deliberately, but an unfortunate impression was created in the press and I hope the minister will be sympathetic toward this case and any others that might turn up.


Mr. Boisvert:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister if he would allow me to do so. My question concerns the Hungarian immigrants who have been accepted in Canada up to the present time. Can the minister tell me how many were under nine years of age? Before the minister rises to answer my question I wish to say a few words about a group of young Hungarian immigrants who were admitted into this country.
Under the auspices of the bishop of Nicolet, His Excellency Monsignor Martin, a group of people were organized to receive young Hungarian immigrants, and already 600 have been taken in by families some of whom had five or six children or more. I might also point out that the demand for these unhappy young immigrants has been greater than the number who are available. The group has encountered one problem and

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration it is the following. It is the desire of those families who have taken children into their homes to adopt the refugees, but according to the law of the province of Quebec the adoption cannot be legalized if the parents of the children are alive.
I would be grateful to the minister if an inquiry could be conducted as quickly as possible to learn whether the parents of these children are living or dead. If they are dead it will be very easy to have the refugee children legally adopted; then because of their young age they will grow into real Canadians and will be a great asset to the province of Quebec and to our country as a whole. I know the refugee children have been accepted into the homes like the real children of the mother and father, and are receiving from each member of the family the deepest affection that the human heart can give to another human being. If the Department of Citizenship and Immigration can conduct a survey as quickly as possible, as I have already said, in order to learn if the refugee children are orphans, it will be in the best interest of the orphans themselves and of the country.
(Translation):
Before resuming my seat, I should like to say a few words in French because I know that the hon. minister understands French very well and speaks it on occasion.
I commend the government and the minister for the manner in which they approached and solved the problem of Hungarian immigration, because they showed a world which is overrun by materialism that Canada has not yet lost its sense of humanity.
If we give those children who have been admitted into this country the same care and attention we give our own, they will be proud to become part of the Canadian community. They will forget the horrors they went through, and that were wrought upon them by people who called themselves their brothers. I therefore trust that those newcomers to Canada will make an important contribution, and that they will prove humanity is still the best law which governs mankind.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the statement made by the minister on this question, which is of particular concern to the Canadian people at this time and in which a great number of people are expressing a keen interest. I realize all the difficulties that surround a crash operation like this. I have discussed the matter with constituents of mine who are supporters of all parties in this house. There has been a particularly lively interest in 
this question in the riding of Kootenay West, and I must say that some of the letters most critical of the policy of the government which have appeared in the local papers were written by some of the most prominent Progressive Conservatives in my constituency, frankly expressing their views and concern about certain aspects of the government's policy in this case. As a result of conversations with people of all parties I agreed to briefly present their views to the house.
I am sure we all agree with the purpose behind this movement. I did not encounter anyone who opposed the coming to Canada of genuine political refugees; in fact, all the people to whom I spoke said they would welcome them. They were concerned, however, about certain aspects of the government's policy. I learned that a good number were concerned that only desirable persons should enter Canada. They were wondering whether the screening of these people was sufficient, and whether there were satisfactory medical examinations. I was very pleased to hear the minister say today that these people were screened and there were adequate medical examinations of those desirous of entering the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit me to interrupt? I would not like a false impression to be created about this matter. These people are in Austria, they are not in Hungary. Austria is part of the free world, and the Austrian government appealed to the rest of the free world to take the refugees as they came and not to select. Great Britain, France and every other European country did just that; and we here as a government, as I announced last November, made a decision to do the same thing. I believe the United States because of its rigid laws does refuse some and leaves them on the doorstep of Austria, but we do not. We give them medical examinations, and if treatment is necessary it is arranged here. We do not reject them for that reason. We are attempting to do as much political screening as is consistent with their rapid movement to Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his explanation. I realize the difficulties with respect to screening, but on behalf of these constituents I do urge that as time proceeds, every effort be made to see that no unsuitable persons come into this country, that is persons who cannot accept our democratic way of life.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is hard to satisfy all the people in British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Not always. I misunderstood the minister when he mentioned medical examinations. I thought he meant in Austria.

I understand now that they are examined in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are examined in Austria as far as possible, but when it is not possible they are examined here.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If they are found to have disabilities do they receive treatment in Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The second point I have is that effect should be given to a policy under which no Canadian workman would be displaced from employment. That is one question I have had repeatedly brought to my attention.


Mr. Byrne:: Did Conservatives say that?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: People of all parties, including the Liberal party. Many of the people to whom I spoke thought the government should exercise equal compassion and equal treatment for Canadians such as those mentioned by the member for Cape Breton South, where people wished to go to other places in Canada; and for those relatives of Canadian citizens who have been refugees from tyranny for a considerable number of years, some of whom have been in Hong Kong for some time and whose aim it is to come to countries such as ours.
As I said before, the minister dealt with the question of screening and has given a further explanation with respect to medical examinations. I was quite pleased to hear that he was frank in admitting that we are bound to get some bad eggs; I hope they are few in number.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So do I.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the fears of working people have some basis in fact, because I was interested to read a newspaper dispatch in the Toronto Globe and Mail of today's date which said:
CCCLi Charges Canadians Being Replaced by Refugees.
President Gerard Picard of the 100,000-member Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour said today some employers are dismissing Canadian workers and hiring Hungarian refugees at lower salaries.
I presume that is on a very small scale at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I certainly hope so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think the government should do more than hope so; they should give effect to this policy so as to do everything within their power to see that this situation is not allowed to develop.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the hon. member that the placement service in my department would never knowingly direct an immigrant to any employer who was dis-

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration placing his own workmen in order to take on immigrants, and we would do our best to see that he did not get them. Sometimes, however, it might happen that, on their own, immigrants might stray into such situations and it might be difficult to prevent that happening. I can assure the member that we would not intentionally allow it to happen.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad to hear that, and I hope the government will do everything possible to see that this situation does not develop, particularly during the winter months.
I am sure the great majority of these immigrants are very thankful and grateful to have the opportunity of coming to a country such as Canada. I understand that the department pays the passage of these people who come to Canada, and in the great majority of cases they come by air.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, most of them have come by sea.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In any case the Canadian people pay their fares?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister consider it unfair if we treated these people as we do people from other countries; that is, if we were to ask them to repay their passage, which was advanced by the Canadian government, in small sums per month when they found it possible to do so? I mention this because that idea has been given to me by a number of people, and I told them I would bring the matter up in the house.
I have just given the minister the views of a good number of people in my constituency, which I promised to do.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I am drawn into this discussion because of one comment made by the hon. member for Kootenay West. He mentioned that there was a variety of opinion concerning this problem of the Hungarian refugees, and he gave honourable mention to the Conservative party.
The problem is one which requires understanding and sympathy, I think, on the part of all members of this house as well as on the part of all citizens of Canada. It is an emergency situation and I feel that it should not be treated from the standpoint of narrow party politics; rather it should be treated from the standpoint of the broad humanitarian viewpoint. It is the first time Canada has attempted to deal with an emergency refugee situation, and there are bound to be many kinds of unanticipated problems.
In my area we have had a small share in the matter and, contrary to the situation which seems to prevail in the constituency of



Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the hon. member for Kootenay West, some of the leading people who have been serving on the voluntary committees are ardent supporters of mine. In the city of Brandon we have had a particularly active group. We have quite successfully coped with the situation, largely because of the generous response on the part of the ordinary citizen.
I would like to commend the officials of the department. There might be some criticism by way of lack of over-all co-ordination by the top levels of the department, but certainly in my contact with Mr. Baillie, Mr. Voisey and Mr. Roberts it has been evident that they have done an excellent job in our particular locality. We are working by trial and error, and I hope the precedents which have been established and the experience which is being acquired will not be forgotten by the department but that they will take advantage to a much greater extent of the opportunity to obtain outstanding citizens by way of immigration emergencies of this kind.
The municipalities are somewhat concerned as to how much of a financial burden arising from this emergency will devolve upon them. There might be some bad eggs among the immigrants, but there are also plenty of good eggs. An immigrant who was being medically examined was found to have several large fragments of shrapnel lodged in his person. He had carried them ever since the days of the fighting in Budapest, and when he was asked why he had not reported the trouble before, even though he was suffering considerable pain, he replied that he was
afraid that if he had he would have been prevented from coming to Canada. That, I think, is typical to a large extent of the spirit of a large proportion of these immigrants. This man has now been hospitalized. Does the department pay the expenses arising from a situation of this kind?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me, in view of the limited time now available, to answer the very specific questions which were asked by the hon. member for Red Deer, whose speech I appreciated very much, because this is strictly concrete information which I think it would be helpful to have on record in today's Hansard.
I can give the distribution by provinces up to and including today, assuming that every train and plane arrived today as it was expected to do. I have a table here, and perhaps I may read it very quickly. For the whole of the Atlantic provinces there have been 118. The other figures are: Quebec, 3,099; Ontario, 3,382; Manitoba, 1,013; Saskatchewan, 307; Alberta, 684; British Columbia, 1,310.
I have also a table here showing the occupational groups, and perhaps with regard to that it might be agreed that it be put on the record without my having to read it.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is that course
agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The tables are as follows:


HUNGARIAN REFUGEES ARRIVALS AND ALLOCATION AS OF JANUARY 25, 1957
[Stage Direction]
By Province
Month of arrivals
Nfld. N.S. P.E.I. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Total
November	
-	-	-	-	93	29	-	-	-	-	122December	
4	-	-	-	835	1,971	337	306	265	327	1,045January	
-	28	-	86	2,171	1,3S2	676	1	419	983	5,7464*	28*	-*	86* 3,099	3,382	1,013	307	684 1,310	9,913
* Of 260 Hungarian refugees allocated to Atlantic provinces, only 118 remained and were desirous of accepting employment in these provinces.

JANUARY 25, 1957 681 Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Numerical and Percentage Distribution of Hungarian Refugees Processed Vienna, Paris, London, The Hague, Brussels, Cologne and Berne By Major Occupational Groups November 26, 1956 to January 16,1957				
Occupational Group			Number	Percentage
				% Of
Destined to the Labour Force-				Total Workers
Managerial	13	[DOT]2Professional	. 880	11-1Clerical	320	4-0Transportation	, 228	2-8Communication	5	-Commercial	77	10Financial	3	-Service	. 936	11-8Agriculture	. 297	3-7Fishing, trapping, logging	. 29	[DOT]4Mining	. 170	2-1Manufacturing and mechancial. .	. 3,403	' 42-8Labourers	1,594	200Total Workers	. 7,955	100-0%ofNot Destined to the Labour Force-	Total FlowWives	. 2,319	17-4Children	. 2,264	16-9Others	. 799	5-9Total Dependents	. 5,382	40-3Grand Total	13,337	100-0
I also have a further table showing those processed up to January 16 by sex and marital status. I think these are perhaps the most useful figures to give, and they are the only ones I have available.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that the other tables referred to be included in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The table is as follows:


DISTRIBUTION OF HUNGARIAN REFUGEES PROCESSED IN VIENNA, PARIS, LONDON, THE HAGUE, BRUSSELS, COLOGNE AND BERNE BY SEX AND MARITAL STATUS NOVEMBER 26, 1956 TO JANUARY 16, 1957
[Stage Direction]
MALES	FEMALES
Type	

Grand
Sin. Mar. Wid. Div. Total Sin. Mar. Wid. Div. Total Total
Workers	 3,231	2,802	47	218	6,298	918	449	127	163	1,657	7,955
Dependents-
Wives	
______	2,314	2	3	2,319	2,319Children	
1,222	3	2	-	1,227	1,034	3	-	-	1,037	2,264Others	
502	46	7	2	557	162	35	36	9	242	799Total dependents...	1,724	49	9	2	1,784	1,196	2,352	38	12	3,593	5,382Grand Total. 4,955	2,851	56	220	8,082	2,114	2,801	165	175	5,255	13,337
682
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the Canadian staff in Austria, and their distribution among the various camps?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I intend to try at a later stage to answer all these different questions. Perhaps I could answer one of the questions put by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris right away. We are still in contact with most of the provincial governments with regard to how we are going to adapt the ordinary agreement for medical care of immigrants to this situation, but the expense will not fall on the municipalities.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I do not suppose the minister has any particular choice with regard to who is coming. Has he any knowledge as to the percentage of these immigrants who are agriculturists or farmers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I regret to say the answer is, only a small percentage; if it were greater we could place them very quickly. They are nearly all from urban places. These people are refugees from the fighting, just as my ancestors were who came to Ontario in 1783 as refugees from the fighting in the American revolution, and I did not altogether appreciate what the hon. member for Cape Breton South said about people who had to run away. There comes a point where the battle is completely lost and you either accept someone else's domination or you go somewhere else, and I do not think it is any disgrace to these Hungarians that rather than go to Siberia they should seek their fortunes in countries beyond the seas.


Clarence Gillis: I rise on a point of privilege. I am not going to allow the minister to put words in my mouth. The minister is the person who raised that question. He made the statement that he was told, in England and Scotland, that the reason these refugees were going to Canada was because it was still too close to Russia there. My reply to him was that I did not consider that to be a good enough reason, that running away from Russia was not a good reason to enter Canada. It was not I who said that; it was you who said it. I was playing it down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that case, I apologize. What I said, or what I thought I said, was that these people said they had been told when they left Austria that they were going to Canada, and when they found they were not in Canada-some of them when they got to England thought they were in Canada-[DOT] they felt they had been deceived, and said, "Please, we want to go to Canada." I cannot blame them very much for that.


Clarence Gillis: You did say that they said they were still too close to Russia.


John Whitney Pickersgill: After the Russian tanks they had seen in Budapest I don't blame them.


Clarence Gillis: Don't blame me for making that statement. I was playing yours down.


Mr. Regier:: I am sure the minister intends to make an early, lengthy and detailed reply to the many requests for information made by hon. members, and I would therefore only wish to add one or two other matters to his list in order that when we come to his estimates we may obtain a reply.
I believe that a moment ago the minister said these people were refugees from the fighting. I believe he said that. It appears that the hon. member for Red Deer has a little more information with regard to these refugees than a number of other hon. members have. I wonder whether, when the minister obtains additional information, he would be able to find out for us what proportion of the refugees actually participated in the battle against communism.
I am in full agreement with what the hon. member for Red Deer is advocating when he says by all means let us do all we can to help widows and orphans, children and mothers-I do not know whether he actually mentioned mothers, but I would add mothers -and so on. In other words we should help those who have suffered most. However, I would like to tell the minister that the favourite complaint that has been made to me is that the vast majority of these people seem to be young, husky, healthy single men; and it seems rather odd, if we are so open-hearted and anxious to help refugees from the horrors of battle, that the bulk of the immigrants should not be widows and orphans and so on.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but it being five o'clock the house must proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.


Walter Edward Harris: I realize that we are in the middle of an interesting debate which might take some time-on the other hand it might not-but some of this money is quite urgently needed, in regard to the particular item we are discussing as well as the final item on the list, and if it is possible for us to proceed with this for the remainder of the day's sitting it would avoid a great deal of inconvenience for the Minister of Finance, though I would not advocate this course, naturally, on any ground other than that of the public interest.
The Depuiy Chairman: In any event I feel it is essential that at this time I should vacate the chair, as I think hon. members would

agree that the committee of supply would not have authority to set aside the private bills hour.
Progress reported.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


PRIVATE BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance. It is not my desire to influence the house. Therefore I ask whether there is unanimous consent that all items under public and private bills be considered as allowed to stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a bill in my name is first on the list. It was my intention to proceed with the motion for second reading of that bill during this hour, but if it is understood that if my bill stands all the others will stand too, I would be willing to let mine stand, in response to the appeal of the house leader. I trust that on future occasions he will remember this example of co-operation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is it agreed that there is unanimous consent that all the business under private and public bills shall be regarded as allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There being no business for this hour, the house will revert to the consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Immigration branch-
539. To provide, subject to the approval of treasury board, for transoceanic, inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers -further amount required, including authority to make advances, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to the intergovernmental committee for European migration for the cost of transportation and other assistance with respect to Hungarian refugees coming to Canada, and to the provinces for the cost of caring for such refugees, $9,000,000.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, now that we have at least another few minutes I should like to make it very clear that I support fully the position taken at the special session by the group to which I belong, and that we support wholeheartedly in principle the over-all actions of the government with regard to the admission of Hungarian refugees to Canada. However, I am sure 82715-441
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that after the passage of the intervening months even the minister would not expect opposition members to agree to everything that is proposed without at least presenting to him the opinions of the people as they are expressed to us from time to time.
When the committee rose at five o'clock I was asking whether the minister could give me some indication in his reply as to the age level and marital status of those who were coming to Canada. I should like to exempt from this request those refugees who were university students, because it is a well known fact that it was the students of Hungary who were the first of the freedom fighters, and I heartily endorse young men of that type entering our country.
We hope the action of the government on this occasion to obtain suitable immigrants for Canada will be a precedent in obtaining more of the badly needed immigrants from the British Isles. I believe most members of the house would welcome action along similar lines, maybe not at this moment but in the next year or two, to obtain an influx of desirable citizens from the United Kingdom who we understand are very anxious to come to our country in large numbers.
I should like the minister also to inform the house how many newspaper, radio and other personnel were sent to Austria at the expense of the Canadian government, and also what was the exact purpose of sending such personnel there. I endorse what the hon. member for Fort William said to the effect that most of these immigrants are Catholics, and he added that Catholics too can be very hungry. I should like to remind the hon. member for Fort William and the minister that there are millions of people in Asia, especially in India and Hong Kong, who can be very hungry too, and who have been hungry and starving for years. I understand that fully a million in Hong Kong alone are also refugees from communism. Many of them have suffered as severely as many of the refugees whom we are now welcoming to Canada, if not more so.
Then in the displaced persons' camps of West Germany there are still thousands and thousands of refugees from communism, many of whom have suffered equally. Yet in the case of those in Hong Kong, and to a lesser degree in the case of the refugees from communism now in West Germany, we seem to have to pry them past the offices of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in order for them to be able to see the light of day in Canada. Therefore we hope that other refugees from communism will at least be given equally favourable treatment.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I know the minister made the statement that the government of France had not set any limit on the number it was permitting into that country, and later on he said that as the result of an agreement he had reached with the French government it had agreed to take a corresponding 3,000 more. I think there is a slight misunderstanding there, because if the French government has not set any limit it can hardly agree to take a further 3,000 or a corresponding 3,000 more. That is all I have to say at this time. I certainly hope the minister can clear up a few of the misunderstandings that are spreading around the country, and that have been expressed by members of various groups in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall try to be very
brief so the Minister of Finance can get on with his other urgent items.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, would the minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps if I do not answer all the questions in great detail-	,


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister allow me to interrupt him to say that I have one or two questions? Perhaps the minister would rather have me ask them before he sums up?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly. I had not realized that the hon. gentleman had risen.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I listened, like other members, with much interest to what the minister had to say, and I think I should say quite frankly that I felt there was a good deal to say for what had been done. I listened, of course, with particular interest to the triple play which he described between himself, Mrs. Pickersgill and the Minister of Fisheries. It certainly was a lucky triple play. However, in saying these things perhaps the minister will not mind if I add a word of caution from that great authority, that great philosopher W. S. Gilbert:
But though the compliment implied Inflates me with legitimate pride,
It nevertheless can't be denied That it has its inconvenient side.
The "inconvenient side" is that one naturally expects that the minister will be able to answer every other question and deal with every other situation with the same degree of, shall I say, lucky skill as in the case of the forestry school. I have a few questions I should like the minister to deal with when he comes to reply.
I do not think any figure has been given as to the number in actual employment. I was out of the house for a few minutes, but I do not think that question has been asked. I should also like to have a breakdown by


provinces, if possible, though perhaps that is not so important. Then I should like to have a breakdown by trades.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was given.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The next thing I find of interest is what is the distribution of responsibility for finding jobs as among the department, the provinces and private organizations? Then there is another thing that seems to me of considerable importance. I have heard of a case where apparently the working day of some of the immigrants was broken in two, part of it being spent in ordinary employment and part occupied in learning English. I suppose there may be cases also where there may be a certain amount of training or retraining for some special occupations required. Those are the things about which I would particularly like to know.
Yes, there is one other question. Is any estimate possible as to what further number of refugees is likely to come from Hungary to Vienna? This may be something which the minister does not care to answer at all.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Before the minister replies there are one or two comments I should like to make and questions I should like to ask. First, I should like to express my appreciation of the humanitarian principle which is involved in bringing people from the tribulations of communist domination to the relative freedom of Canada. I believe the people all across Canada appreciate that. Certainly we in this group do, and we would like to see that principle extended to other groups in the world who have suffered from this same domination. If these Hungarians are being brought in on humanitarian grounds I think it would be only right to assume that the government should maintain this principle so far as refugees from Russian domination in other territories of the world are concerned.
Before I deal specifically with that, I should like to ask the minister if consideration will be given to assisting the municipalities which, within a year's time, will be charged with the responsibility of caring for any of these refugees who have not been able to find a place for themselves in Canadian life. It would appear that since the government of Canada has assumed responsibility, and rightly so, for bringing these refugees to Canada, they should continue to shoulder that responsibility rather than letting it fall on the urban and rural municipalities in which these individuals happen to take up residence.
I should like the minister to tell me if the government is giving consideration to affording fairer treatment to the refugees from

communist domination who have settled in Hong Kong. The minister mentioned that some of the Hungarians are now going to be sponsored and will be allowed to come into Canada on that basis. Perhaps the hands of the minister are tied by the platform of the Liberal party adopted in August of 1919, in which section 7 reads:
A more effective restriction of Chinese immigration.
I hope that part of government policy has been changed to one of humanitarian principles, but I doubt that this is so; because I have a case where an individual applied to bring in his adopted son, who is one of the refugees from communist aggression now in Hong Kong, but the minister's humanitarian background has failed to give any recognition to the desirability of this man bringing his remaining child to Canada. I think the minister will be familiar with some of the details. The application has been denied because the minister said it was an adopted child. Surely there are adopted children coming in from Hungary on the same basis. The principle the government has been following of allowing those to come into Canada whom they deemed would fit into the economy is a rather narrow one, especially when they take credit for humanitarian motives.
My plea is that the government be consistent, and if we are going to take credit for being humanitarian then let us prove we are humanitarian by giving consideration to some of those who are suffering the same hardships from communist aggression. It is apparent that the government that has been in office is determined to prevent these people from coming into Canada, as is indicated by their platform of 1919 which evidently is still in force.


Mr. Green:: Practically all the discussion this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, has been on the subject of refugees from Hungary; but as I read this vote it is a great deal broader than that. It is not restricted to immigrants coming from that unfortunate country. I would ask the minister to explain, when he replies to the various questions that have been raised, what steps his department has taken to meet the situation which has arisen in the United Kingdom. Evidently within the last few weeks there has been a great increase in the number of applicants wishing to come to Canada from the United Kingdom. I am wondering whether the department has extended its facilities for dealing with those applicants, the way it proposes to do so, and in just what manner those who are applying would be able to benefit from this vote.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Probably the minister will have noticed that there was a very critical editorial in the Globe and Mail-[DOT]


John Whitney Pickersgill: I read them all. I have been surprised we have come this far without having this brought up.


Howard Charles Green: I do not know whether the facts set out in that editorial are correct, but in any event I do suggest to the minister that this is a serious situation. I hope facilities can be made available so these applicants can be dealt with promply. Perhaps the minister would answer those two questions when he is replying to the others.
Mr. Pallet!:	I was interested in the
minister's remark that there are some bad eggs amongst the Hungarians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said there probably
would be.
Mr. Pallet!: I wonder if the minister could give any information to the house concerning what his information is in that regard, as the situation stands, without probabilities. What is the factual information behind that statement, if there is any? The minister will recall, unless he was absent at the time, there were some reports in the Toronto newspapers with regard to one incident, and I wonder if he could enlighten us as to that incident and if there were other such incidents what were their results.
In replying to the questions I wonder if the minister would also give us a breakdown of the $9 million under the various headings that are shown in the vote, such as transoceanic travel, inland transportation and then "other assistance"? I wonder if he would be kind enough to break down this vote under those various headings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I could resume, sir, where I left off when I was so courteously interrupted by the hon. member for Greenwood with his interesting questions, I shall try to deal with the questions raised in the order in which hon. members spoke. The hon. member for Kamloops, whose lukewarm support on this occasion I can regard only as the highest praise, did raise a question about whether or not there were any Hungarian dictionaries or other books of that sort. There is a book on the press which I hope will be ready in a day or two. I had hoped it would be available a little earlier.
One of the officials of the Department of Labour, who was seconded for a little while to my department by my colleague and who is himself a Hungarian Canadian and the author of a number of important scholarly works, did work out a sort of basic dictionary.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration It appears there is only one printing shop in Canada properly equipped to produce it. I think they were a little congested over the Christmas period and it has taken them a little longer than they had hoped. We hope to get it and other books as quickly as possible. This is a real problem and one you cannot meet very quickly.
As far as education generally goes, of course, we have agreements with practically all the provincial governments except two- maybe it is only one-for sharing the costs of education of adult immigrants. The provincial authorities administer the schemes, and they administer them in most provinces very well indeed. That is particularly true in the province of British Columbia. I think they are working very well to meet this problem, are recognizing its urgency and are coping with it, according to the information I have, very quickly. Certainly that is the general report from most parts of the country.
I do not think the hon. member for Kamloops would mind if we put off debate on whether the refugees should be in camps for longer or shorter periods until my general estimates are before the house. I would like in time to give my reasons for following the policy we are following, but very briefly I would like to say that I spent involuntarily-perhaps that is not true; perhaps voluntarily-two weeks in the hospital, and the day I left, I was reluctant to leave and face the world-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps it was because there was to be a session of parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the day parliament opened. Perhaps that had something to do with it. I think there is a terrible danger of people getting this sheltered mentality if they remain too long in comparative idleness in institutions. For my part I believe it is a great deal better to get these people living with Canadian families in the way we live in this country, and I think they will learn far more about the country; they will probably learn far more English far faster. I would like to go on at length on this subject, but I do not think I should.
Both the hon. member for Kamloops and the hon. member for Greenwood asked whether I could make any guess as to how many more Hungarians would come into Austria. I cannot; I do not think anybody's guess is worth very much, because we do not know what is going to happen in Hungary. Certainly the number has greatly diminished lately, and I think that is due to the more brutal policies that now appear to be followed by the regime in Hungary.
The question was also raised as to whether we should not have brought the people to
.
Canada a little faster than we have. Perhaps it would have been possible for us to take one or two thousand more in the months of February and March than we are planning. If the taking of one or two thousand more would have solved the whole problem I think I would have urged my colleagues to do it no matter what difficulties it would have created here, but it would not have solved the whole problem or more than a fringe of it. Having regard to all the circumstances, and having regard to the effort we were making, I felt that since it would not have solved the problem it was better to make these staging arrangements.
I think that with respect to the points raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I have said as much as I need to say. I do not think our real differences are anything like as great as our apparent differences.
I should like once again to thank the hon. member for Red Deer for the very pleasant things he said about my department. In so far as this movement of Hungarians is concerned, they are deserved. These public servants have worked terribly hard. It is not easy to get trained people quickly to handle a greatly increased number of immigrants; and officials must have a certain amount of training if it is to be done at all efficiently. The result was that all of them worked overtime; they gave up practically all of their holidays, and they are still working very hard indeed, both in Europe and all over Canada, and I appreciate what the hon. gentleman said about their service.
I gave the figures a little while ago for the distribution of the Hungarians across the country, and they will appear in Hansard. I gave figures for the ages and the marital status and the breakdown of occupations. I did not read them out, but they will appear in Hansard. The hon. member for Fort William said some very kind things about the local committees in Fort William, and I would like to echo what he said about all these local committees all over this country.
The hon. member for Kamloops said he felt there was not enough co-ordination at the top. I do not think I made myself clear. I do not think we should try to dictate how these things are to be done. We are trying, with our local officials, to do everything we can to co-operate with all those who are interested, and to give all the guidance we are asked to give; but we are not trying to push people around or to boss them unduly. That was really the point I was trying to make. I perhaps did it rather clumsily.
The hon. member for Oxford asked me whether I would elaborate on the movement

of students. I am glad he did, because it gives me an opportunity to express again my great appreciation to the president of the University of Toronto and to a group of businessmen in Toronto who really made the most magnificent arrangements for the reception of this group of students, and I think the whole country should be grateful for what they are doing. I should like to repeat that there is this other group of 100 students who are in Montreal. I hope similar arrangements, perhaps on a less elaborate scale, will be made by interested individuals and corporations and universities, of course, for them.
The hon. member for Oxford raised the question of refunding the transportation expenses of people who had brought out their own relatives. What I said in the house, I am sure all hon. members will recall, was that we intended to cancel the assisted passage loans that had been given up to that time. That was all I said here, and I did not feel it would be proper for us to go beyond what I said here. We will look at these cases. Of course I do not think any case could have arisen after the day I made that statement, so that any of these cases where people borrowed money to pay these passages would' have occurred before the policy was adopted; but if there does seem to be real hardship I will give consideration to what it would be proper for me to ask the taxpayers of Canada generally to do. But it would be quite a sharp departure from anything we have done before to suggest paying people for something they had already decided to do as a matter of family obligation.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska asked me how many of these Hungarians were under the age of nine years. I am afraid I could not answer that offhand. I will try to get the information and give it to him privately. If he refers to children who are not accompanied by their parents the number would be very, very small indeed. I understand the Red Cross have established a tracing service and they are trying to trace information about people who are separated from other members of their families, for the reason given by the hon. gentleman and for other reasons as well.
The hon. member for Kootenay West raised some questions, most of which I think I dealt with immediately after he raised them, but there was one about asking these people to repay the passage money. Having announced here that the passage was to be free I do not think we could very well go back on that policy, but I do say this. I have had one or two letters from Hungarians, one very touching, and if it were not so late in the day I would read it. These Hungarians received
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration free passages, and are now voluntarily paying the money back. I do think if those who get good jobs quickly-and some of them are getting very good jobs quickly after they come here

would make a gesture of that kind it would make a very good impression on the Canadian people generally, and would help a great deal to make movements of this kind more acceptable.
A great many of these people, in fact practically all of them, came here with nothing except the clothes they were wearing. During the next few years many of them will have a much more difficult time in establishing themselves than would ordinary immigrants who bring something with them. I think that is and can be the only defence of our policy, and it is the only reason this free transportation is being provided for these people and not for others.
I echo what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris said about the committee in Brandon. Outside of being a Newfoundlander, I suppose I am a Manitoban next-


Douglas Scott Harkness: You sound pretty fishy
now, all right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I must say that
nowhere have the Hungarian refugees been received better than in Manitoba. In proportion to population a larger number have gone to Manitoba than to any other province.
I dealt with the question of the immigrants constituting a burden on the municipalities in a press release right after I came home. There is no burden on the municipalities for relief during the first year or for medical expenses for indigents.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked how many of the refugees had been fighters. I do not think we can answer that question precisely. I would imagine that it would certainly not be more than one-third of them, because quite a large number are women and children. Nevertheless a good number actually were fighters, including a large number of the students. I think the reason there are so many single young men is that these are the people, especially the key men, who expected that if they stayed in Hungary they would be deported to Siberia. That is one reason there is a rather large proportion of young men, and another reason is that many of these people had to walk 20 or 30 miles to reach the border of Austria. There were not many widows, aged persons and unaccompanied children, and there are practically no orphans.
The hon. member for Greenwood asked if I could say what number are in actual employment. I am afraid I cannot tell him at this time. A great many of these people
688	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration have come, if not to sponsors, to friends. I would like to say a word of special appreciation here for the efforts of the Hungarian Canadians. Everywhere in the country they have done and are doing a wonderful job in assisting us to receive these Hungarian refugees. I am sure they are going to make it much easier for these people to adapt themselves quickly to this country.
I interpose that comment because a great many of these refugees go to stay with Hungarian families immediately upon their arrival in Canada. They are being looked after by them, and it is going to take a considerable time before we will know how many of them are in actual employment and how many are not. I could probably get a figure concerning the number who were placed through the employment service or my department, but I could not possibly give a figure that would be at all accurate as to the total number who would be employed at the present time.
The hon. member for Kindersley asked whether any provision was going to be made for the burden that might fall on the municipalities after one year. I think the answer to that question is definitely no. It seems to me that if we are going to have an immigration policy in this country we must bear in mind that we are bringing these people here with a view to their becoming Canadian citizens, and they should be treated like other Canadian citizens. In most localities they cannot qualify for welfare services until after the first year, at which time they can and should qualify just like anybody else in this country, unless we are going to discriminate against one group of residents.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said this vote was not restricted to Hungarians. That is quite true, though all the additional money we are requesting is required because of the Hungarian movement. He did ask me something about the situation in the United Kingdom and what is being done about it. I did say something about that, possibly at a time when the hon. gentleman was unavoidably absent from the chamber, but perhaps I could repeat my remarks.


Howard Charles Green: I have been here all afternoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should repeat that as early as last August my department anticipated the need for additional shipping and other forms of transport for the larger movement of immigrants we expected this year, and at the present time we are in active negotiation for a large amount of additional transport. There is no trouble at the present time concerning British immigrants or any


others getting transportation to come to Canada, but there probably will be after the first of April. The ships are not completely booked at the present time, but after the first of April commercial accommodation is not going to be adequate, and we are now taking active steps to get as much transport as we can.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister misunderstood my question. I was referring to the departmental set-up abroad; for example, in London. I should like to know what is being done to meet the criticism that appeared in the editorial in the Globe and Mail to which I referred.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have seen the editorials which dealt with transportation, as well as the one to which the hon. gentleman referred. As far as accommodation in London is concerned, it is quite true that when you have an office staff of a size geared to look after from 500 to 700 applicants a day and applicants start coming at the rate of 3,000 a day, as they were when I was in London in December, and as they have been all the time since except on holidays, it is just not possible to deal with everyone who applies on the day he appears. I do not believe anything very serious is lost over this, because the applications are caught up with in a relatively short time, and appointments are made for a later period for those who indicate that in any case they do not intend to come to Canada until several months hence. According to the information that has been given to me, all those who have planned to come to Canada immediately are being dealt with.
We are securing additional accommodation in London. We have opened a new office in Bristol and have increased our accommodation in Glasgow, and are pressing into service just as many officers as we can who are capable of doing the work. I think the problem will be adequately dealt with.
The hon. member for Peel asked me what I knew about "bad eggs". I know nothing at all about the subject, but I am sure that when you bring 10,000 people to a country, as we have already done, without having the time to look them over carefully in the way we try to do with immigrants generally, I do not care what group of 10,000 people you take, you are going to have some who are not going to turn out well.
I do not know very much concerning the details of the incident in Toronto. I read the newspaper accounts and I understand an investigation has been carried out. I have not yet seen the final report of the investigation, but it was quite properly carried out

by the provincial authorities, since it happened in a shelter established by them. It is the only incident about which I have heard.
As to the breakdown of the vote, I have here an approximation, and I hope it will be understood that we do not feel bound to spend it in exactly this way. It is estimated that approximately $2,800,000 will be required for inland transportation in overseas countries to the point of embarkation and for transoceanic transportation, including the costs connected with the removal, embarkation and debarkation of refugees. There is an estimate of approximately $700,000 for inland transportation in Canada. There is also an amount for maintenance, clothing and other expenses incidental to the movement and establishment of Hungarian refugees, including emergency assistance as and when required during the first year in Canada. That is the amount that is expected to be required up to the end of the fiscal year, approximately $390,000.
Then there is an advance of $4,750,000 to the inter-governmental committee on European migration in prepayment of passages over the period. We do not think this is very accurate. It is probably the minimum we expect to need. Then there is an advance of about $300,000 to be paid partly to provincial institutions and to other voluntary organizations for welfare and other assistance and incidental expenses.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is one part of the question I asked which I am sure the minister has overlooked inadvertently. I asked if anyone had made any estimate of the total number that might go to Austria. I can understand his answer and am satisfied that perhaps that is not possible. I asked him if it had been possible to make an estimate of the number who might be coming to Canada. Perhaps that could be considered in two ways. First, how many more is it presently envisaged will come if the stream continues to taper off, as it is now doing? Second, has the department made any assessment of the number that it would be feasible for us to take as a result of this refugee movement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think it would be very sensible for me to attempt to give any estimate. I have given the committee all our commitments, and I think the hon. gentleman has said they add up to something like 27,000 or 28,000. I would certainly anticipate that there would be that number, and that that would be the minimum. How many more it may be possible to take or how many more may want to come by the time it would be possible to arrange it will depend upon a great many factors that are
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration still in doubt, including the question of the shortness of transport which we are bound to face in the summer months. I am quite sure that any estimate I made now would be wrong, and I do not think there would be much profit in making it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A related question. The minister has said that as of now no visas had been issued to those who had left Austria and gone to other European countries and the United Kingdom, and that these would not be issued until the flow of those wishing to come directly from Austria had been dealt with, except for sponsored cases. I take it that after the number of refugees coming from Austria has been reduced to manageable proportions, shall we say, visas may then be given to Hungarian refugees who are in other European countries. I should like to know whether that is correct.
In order that we and they may both understand the situation, may I ask if the same arrangement for the payment of passages would apply to those who would then be coming not from Austria but from some other country, which would be considered an intermediate stage in their movement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think all these things
should be considered in due course. As far as the 10,000 for whom arrangements have been made with three countries are concerned, their passages will of course be paid. That will also be true of any sponsored cases there may be in any of those European countries. Beyond that, until arrangements are made for other movements I really do not think it would be prudent for me, without consultation with my colleagues, to make any commitments at this stage.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Most of the questions I had intended to ask have been asked already, but there is one specific matter about which I should like to inquire. The suggestion has been made that the Budapest opera company might come to Canada as a group, somewhat as the forestry faculty did, to which reference was made earlier in the discussion. Has the minister any information he could give the committee on that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There were about 1,300
people in the Budapest opera company, and about 200 of those people left Hungary. I imagine that among those would be the more distinguished members of the company. About 100 went almost immediately to other European countries. One or two came to Canada, having relatives in metropolitan Toronto. Some of the group went back to Hungary. Nearly all have gone to one place or another.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Some of them may come to Canada as individuals, but I do not think their coming as a group was ever a serious prospect.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister overlooked two of my questions. I was disappointed that the minister was not able to give a figure as to the number in employment, but I appreciate the difficulties which he pointed out. However, my other two questions I think can be answered. First, I asked the minister a question which I think is of some importance, as to the division of responsibility between the federal and provincial authorities in the finding of employment. Then I asked if there was a plan with regard to giving instruction in English and other necessary things, and whether in fact it is already in effect, to the extent that immigrants are working part of the day in industry and spending another part of the day in obtaining instructions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As far as the last question is concerned, I understand that in nearly all cases once these people get employment classes are carried on at night. That is the normal procedure, in order that they may get on with their jobs right away. I dare say there are some who are not employed who may be attending classes in the day time. These classes are all handled by the provincial or local authorities, and I must say that I have not all the details at my fingertips.
The responsibility for finding employment for immigrants is the responsibility of my department. We get the greatest co-operation from the national employment service. It has always been felt that the first placement should be looked after by my department. We have the responsibility of bringing these people here, and it is thought it will make us more responsible about how many we bring.
There is another reason. I think it would be very bad for morale if we had immigrants lining up at employment offices. The employment service does keep us acquainted with vacancies they are not able to fill from their regular lists. They are most co-operative. We have also had excellent co-operation from the provincial governments, but they have no responsibility in the matter.


John Cameron Pallett: In giving me the breakdown of the cost the minister gave the figures for inland, transoceanic and Canadian travel, but he then seemed to repeat by giving the amount covering prepayments for travel.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The first amount would be spent before the end of the fiscal year, but the other amount covers prepayment for movements after the end of the fiscal year that are presently anticipated.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the minister's
answer to one of my questions regarding people who have been misled by certain press reports as to what the minister had actually said, I am glad to know that the minister is willing to give instructions that consideration would be given to those cases where people advanced money to friends or to close relatives in order that they might get away from Austria and come to Canada. I think it is most commendable for the minister to have done that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Payments to municipalities-
540. Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal properties-Further amount required including authority to make grants under the Municipal Grants Act to the municipalities of Winnipeg, St. James, Edmonton and Vancouver in respect of certain buildings therein notwithstanding that such buildings are located on lands leased by the crown, $2,024,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister care to give a breakdown of this amount among the four cities named in the item?


Walter Edward Harris: The breakdown is not complete, for reasons I will come to in a moment. The anticipated expenditure is as follows: Ottawa, $650,000; North York, Ontario, $150,000; Hull, Quebec, $250,000; Halifax, N.S. $150,000; special authority with respect to Winnipeg, St. James, Edmonton and Vancouver, where certain federal properties are on leased lands, $197,000; Calgary, $50,000, and various other centres, $577,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the minister would like to relate that answer more clearly to the item before us. The item refers to $2,024,000 in respect of Winnipeg, St. James, Edmonton and Vancouver-


Walter Edward Harris: No, Mr. Chairman, the item refers to grants under the Municipal Grants Act. The reference to Winnipeg, St. James, Edmonton and Vancouver arises from the fact that in these particular cases the federal properties are situated on non-federal land which did not qualify under the existing provisions of the Municipal Grants Act. We are voting it in this manner to make the position statutory.


Howard Charles Green: What is the basis for the payments in Vancouver? Is the crown paying the full tax, as though the property were occupied by a private firm?


Walter Edward Harris: The basis for these payments is the existing basis under the 1956-57 statutory provision. The suggested change in the speech from the throne will not be translated into legislation until later in the session.

These are payments on the present basis. In the case of Vancouver the building involved is, I think, a federal building owned by the university; a building which, because it is sited on university property, does not presently qualify.


Howard Charles Green: The university is not in the city; it cannot be that. The university is on provincial land. Can the minister tell us what buildings in Vancouver are affected?


Walter Edward Harris: Not at the moment. There is quite a long list, as I recall. This is intended to provide additional funds because municipal corporations, including Vancouver, had put in applications for considerably more than we expected would be the case, and that is why we are short $2 million. In the case of the cities mentioned we are making grants on a basis which has not up to the present been contemplated or provided for in the statute.


Howard Charles Green: I presume these will be occasions when buildings are owned by some private individuals and leased to the crown.


Walter Edward Harris: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: Will these payments, then, be of benefit to the city or to the owner of the property? Will they relieve the owner of the property of paying that much in municipal taxes? I should like to have the names of the buildings in Vancouver to which this applies.


Walter Edward Harris: I will give that information to the hon. member, but I can assure him that the benefit will accrue to the municipal corporation and not to the lessor.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am puzzled by the reference the Minister of Finance has made to a building located on property belonging to the University of British Columbia-


Walter Edward Harris: Perhaps what you understood me to say was that because these buildings are not situated on federally owned property they are not covered by the present provisions of the act, and this is a way of covering them so that grants can be made in respect of them to municipal corporations.


Howard Charles Green: Are they buildings on which taxes are not being paid now by the private owners?


Walter Edward Harris: These, as I understand it, are buildings that are on property leased to the federal government, I thought by the university, but if the hon. member from Van-couver-Quadra corrects me I must admit I am wrong. At any rate, I think it is provincial or university property which is not taxable by the municipal corporation. Therefore we are taking this way of making it
Supply-Finance
subject to our generosity, if you like to call it that, under the Municipal Grants Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is there anything in the situation that did not exist before? Were these buildings formerly not owned by the government? The change that has taken place I understand is a change in the percentage that has been applied. This seems to be a change affecting certain buildings.


Walter Edward Harris: The change that has been made is this. We have decided to pay with regard to certain buildings in these particular cities, on which up to the moment we have not paid. There is no change with regard to the character of the buildings or the leasehold property. It was decided we ought to pay on these particular buildings, and we are asking parliament for authority to do so.
Mr. Pallet!: A series of other municipalities have been mentioned. Is this additional payment a payment on new construction, or does it represent extra grants on previous submissions by municipalities?


Walter Edward Harris: As I said, the number of applications from our municipal corporations has grown; there were a great many more than we had anticipated, and the sum of half a million dollars which I referred to covers a number of municipal corporations in regard to which we had no idea we might have to make grants. In other cases the grants are for greater sums of money, with the result that the estimate I placed before parliament last spring has proved inadequate. I have not with me the long list of all the additional corporations that would be covered; I think I gave information about that in the spring when the amendment was put through, but I can assure members of this committee that the amount of money we have had to pay in the meantime has surprised us.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is this a case where the conscience of the department has become more active than it was before, and they therefore feel they should pay on leased premises?


Walter Edward Harris: As a Baptist to a Presbyterian I suggest we should not discuss consciences, because sometimes we do not agree.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
University grants-
541. To authorize payments to the national conference of Canadian universities (hereinafter called "the conference") for the purpose of making grants to institutions of higher learning in accordance with an agreement entered into or to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, between the Minister of Finance and the conference, such agreement to include, inter alia, provision that the total amount of grants to all the institutions of higher learning in any one province be calculated by multiplying the population of the province by $1, and that any amount payable to
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance
an institution of higher learning and not paid by the conference in the present fiscal year may be retained by the conference until such time as the institution to which the money is payable claims the payment from the conference or parliament provides otherwise for the disposal thereof; the amount appropriated under vote 132 of the Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956 to be applied to the purposes of this vote; additional amount required, $7,986,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, there is a situation here which I do not fully understand.


George Clyde Nowlan: Six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Monday, of course, is private members' day, and I would not suggest that we would not take the full day. On the other hand, on one previous occasion we
found that we did not and I had not announced government business. Therefore on Monday, should private members' business be exhausted and government orders reached, we shall proceed with the Canada Council legislation and the Canadian wheat board bill. On Tuesday we shall take the same legislation, together with the other items on the order paper, and on Wednesday the same. On Thursday, which is private members' day again, we shall follow the same procedure.


George Clyde Nowlan: Dissolve on Friday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about these supplementary estimates?


Walter Edward Harris: We will have to reach them by Friday next. Frankly I had hoped we could pass them today. I hope my last remark, Mr. Speaker, did not indicate a lack of thanks for the co-operation I have had in the last hour.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions