1959-03-05

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.


Hon. J. W. Monieith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report on economic security for the aged in the United States and Canada by Professor Robert Clark, volumes 1 and 2.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the high degree of urgency which the government a year ago attached to the matter, I wonder whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare can now announce the policy which the government intends to take with regard to the Clark report.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite understandable that the Clark report would have to be perused before any policy could be announced.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether in this report Doctor Clark has made any recommendations, and whether in any instructions he had or in discussions with members of the government he was asked not to make any recommendations?


Mr. Speaker:: The first question is one that I think the hon. member can answer for himself by looking at the document which is on the table. I am not sure whether or not the second question is in order.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question was this, Mr. Speaker. Was Doctor Clark instructed to omit any recommendations from this report?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an insinuation which is not in order. I believe the terms of reference are set out in the document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell us whether Doctor Clark was asked to make any recommendations?


Mr. Fleming (Eglinfon):: Why not read the terms of reference?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I think the terms of reference should be read in connection with this matter.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare; I regret not having supplied him with notice. I wonder if the minister could inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to refer the subject matter and contents of the Clark report to a special or standing committee of the House of Commons, and also whether we may expect any legislation at this session as a result of the Clark report?


Jay Waldo Monteith: This will all be given due consideration, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to provide in the proposed measure to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, Bill C-30, now before the house, that a guaranteed loan may be made to a person who, at one time, had an interest in a fishing vessel but no longer has such an interest or to a person who desires to acquire an interest in a fishing vessel for the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
March 3-The Minister of Justice-The following proposed motion-That the subject of humane slaughter of food animals be referred to the standing committee on agriculture.
Mr. Fulton:: Stand.

Labour Conditions-Newfoundland


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands referred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.	_____



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 28 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the introduction by Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland of discriminatory legislation designed to deprive Canadian citizens in that province of their right to freedom of association and to membership in the trade union of their choice, and the imperative need for the government to formulate immediately a policy to guarantee basic human rights and fundamental freedoms to Canadian citizens in every part of this nation.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government acted in 1937, when freedom of the press was threatened by an act of the Alberta legislature. It is my contention that the basic freedoms of the workers are as important as freedom of the press.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: The I.W.A.-C.L.C. organized the loggers of Newfoundland. This union was certified by the Newfoundland labour board; it went through the legal bargaining procedure, and obtained a unanimous conciliation board report recommending a reduction in the work week from 60 to 54 hours and a small wage increase. The strike vote, despite court adjournment, resulted in a 98 per cent vote. All labour board requirements were complied with.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was rather extended in his remarks and I am not just sure what is the urgent public matter which he feels warrants the application of standing order 26. I find difficulty in seeing anything in the matter which the hon. member has mentioned which is within the jurisdiction of this house.
Before stating my decision in that respect, if any hon. member wishes to try to persuade the house that it is a matter for its consideration I will hear him.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to speak on the matter before you decide on the point of order. I should like to point out to you that it is within the jurisdiction

of the governor general in council to disallow any action taken by any provincial legislature in Canada.
It is our contention that as the matter is now receiving consideration and some of this legislation has already received the approval -the unanimous approval, I regret to say- of the legislature of Newfoundland, it is within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada to take action in this regard. Since we regard the actions of the legislature of Newfoundland as an invasion of the fundamental rights of Canadian citizens, we feel that this is a matter which should be discussed at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I must say that the hon. member has not convinced me that there is any subject matter here within the jurisdiction of this house. Disallowance, if it takes place, is by reservation of a bill by the lieutenant governor, and I think it then is a matter for the government, not for the house. In any event the request is not to debate the disallowance of a particular bill. It is to debate the conduct of the premier of Newfoundland and the question of basic rights, which is on the agenda and will be debated in due course by the house. I am sorry that I cannot accept the hon. member's motion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposifion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has anything to report to the house today on the possible visit of the United Kingdom Prime Minister to Canada on matters relevant thereto?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing final to report except to express the sincere hope that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will be in Ottawa. There is a possibility that he will not be in a position to accept the invitation to address parliament; however, we can take it for granted, I think, that he will be here on the occasion of his visit to North America.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Leader

of the Opposition asked this question, as reported at page 1594 of Hansard:
-has the Prime Minister any comment to make on the statement of the United Kingdom Prime Minister in the House of Commons in London today to the effect that he is calling on the west to study the possibility of a partial pull-back or disengagement from central Europe in the interests of the prevention of war?
The information I have is that in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, Prime Minister Macmillan used these words with reference to the possibility of Britain and her allies agreeing on a limitation of forces in central Europe:
It is one of the matters which in my view must be further studied together with all the countries concerned. This is one of my purposes in consulting with our allies.
At this juncture I do not think I should say more than simply refer to the answer which was given by Prime Minister Macmillan, which I have just quoted, and in addition point out that in the reply of July 9, 1958 to the Polish government's Rapacki note, the government stated that it would examine seriously all proposals which might lead to an equitable agreement in Europe. Relevant extracts from the reply, which was tabled on August 4, 1958 in the external affairs committee, are as follows:
.-The Canadian government ... is anxious to explore any proposal which might give some hope of providing an equitable basis for progress towards a disarmament agreement-

The Canadian government remains concerned . . . over the continued failure to achieve much progress on disarmament and we therefore remain ready to examine suggestions which might be expected to lead by stages to the final aim-*
That is the attitude of the government today, and it is in keeping with the suggestion of the British Prime Minister that the various allies of the United Kingdom will be consulted with regard to the question of disengagement.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could revert to motions. I endeavoured to catch your eye, but without success.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sidney Earle Smith: On Tuesday, March 3, 1 tabled in the house a copy of note No. 102 dated February 19, 1959 from the Canadian charge d'affaires in Washington to the acting secretary of state of the United
Inquiries of the Ministry States concerning the United States government's import restrictions on Canadian oil. The first paragraph of the note which I tabled refers to an earlier communication, namely note No. 624 of October 20, 1958, from the Canadian embassy to the acting secretary of state. Since I tabled note No. 102 some hon. members have expressed interest in the earlier document. I therefore take this opportunity to table it, and I hope I can get the unanimous consent of the house to have it printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask if the house agrees to the printing as an appendix to Hansard of the document to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has referred. Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of document referred to above, see appendix, pages 1671-72.]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Has the minister anything further to report on negotiations in connection with the strike of C.B.C. producers in Montreal? Would he care to report to the house any information he has as to the position now taken by the C.B.C. with respect to the implementation of the tentative agreement signed some weeks ago? Can he say whether the C.B.C. is prepared, as I understand the union is, to honour this tentative agreement, and more particularly clause 3?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minisier of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have forgotten the first part of the question. I believe the hon. member asked for a report on the situation. I do not think there is anything I can add for the information of the house which is not contained in the press today. But I am glad the hon. member has raised this other question, because I think in fairness to the house the situation should be clarified.
There have been statements in the press and elsewhere during the last few days that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has changed its position from that which it adopted when the so-called memorandum was initialled some time early in February. At that time I did not feel I was free to discuss the memorandum because the understanding was that it was to be kept confidential until the matter was completed. However, since

Inquiries of the Ministry the wording of this memorandum has appeared in the press on several occasions I do not think anyone could accuse me of a violation of confidence if I were to put a paragraph from it on the record.
With the consent of the house I should like to put on the record a short statement from paragraph 3, subparagraph 1 I think it is, of the agreement which was initialled early in February. I am reading from the English translation. The original agreement was initialled in French, but I am assured the translation is absolutely accurate. This is how the paragraph reads:
The association of producers, due to the role which its members play in the areas of public opinion and public service, and because of the particular position which these members occupy in the C.B.C., undertakes to maintain its independence from any third person, labour union or group of unions, but the association has the right, of course, to ensure for itself advice of a technical nature and assistance from such third person or groups.
That was one paragraph of the agreement which was initialled some time early in February, after these discussions, in fact. Latterly it appeared that the producers felt the agreement would permit them to affiliate with the C.C.C.L., despite the fact that there is this specific statement in the agreement that they were to maintain their independence. As a matter of fact the producers issued a statement which reads:
There is no question of the association of producers breaking all relations with the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour. The normal machinery of our association's affiliation to this labour organization is not completed, even though a request to this effect had been voted before the strike by a general meeting of our membership.
It is evident, however, that we now intend to respect both the spirit and letter of the agreement which we have arrived at with the C.B.C. and that our relationship with the C.C.C.L. will be regulated by a special statute-
There may be some misunderstanding as to the meaning of this word "statute", that is whether they mean a statute or a regulation.
-different from that of regular unions affiliated to this organization and taking into consideration the independence which we have agreed to maintain.
The problem arises, of course, as to how, in one document at one time they state they should be absolutely independent of any union or group of unions, and in the next breath they say they are going to be affiliated with the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, although the machinery of that affiliation has not been completed. It is in an effort to clarify that question that the delay has taken place. Right from the beginning the question at issue in this strike was independence of any union, as the house well knows, and the corporation thought the problem was resolved when this agreement was initialled.
Now it develops that there is a real question of whether this independence is a play on words-I am not suggesting it is a play on words-as to the difference between a trade union and a management union, and the producers apparently feel they are entitled to have a management union but they deny any thought whatever of a trade union. The corporation has asked them to clarify that matter and that clarification has not been forthcoming. This is where the matter stands at the moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: If the association involved is prepared to sign an agreement in exactly those terms, a binding agreement, is the C.B.C. prepared to sign such an agreement, the agreement that was initialled some time ago? Who is breaking faith?


George Clyde Nowlan: The C.B.C. is prepared to sign the agreement which was initialled earlier, providing this question is clarified, and independence assured.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question arising out of the one which has just been asked. Following the minister's statement and the explanation he has given of this clause, does he not think in fairness and in all sincerity that this is the kind of issue in which the government should have intervened a long time ago?


George Clyde Nowlan: The answer to that is no, Mr. Speaker.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Coates (Cumberland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether a decision has yet been made as to the site of any new federal penal institution for the maritime provinces?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker; a decision has been made. Our problem in connection with an institution in the maritimes is twofold; first, to meet the overcrowding now existing at Dorchester penitentiary, which is the only federal penitentiary in the Atlantic area; and second, to plan for the situation which will exist when arrangements are made to take over additional prison responsibilities from the provinces.
To help prepare these plans the correctional planning committee has completed a survey of the Atlantic area. They have reported to me that it is their opinion that a site should be selected as soon as possible which is capable of development to meet

both the requirements I have mentioned and that the Springhill area which they visited possesses to a remarkable degree those basic features that are necessary as a site for a correctional institution; and they have recommended it as the logical location.
The Springhill area has accordingly been chosen as the site. There is still a good deal of planning to do in preparing a national system of penal institutions; therefore I cannot say when the full scale development of this site will be undertaken. Since, however, we have to deal with the overcrowding situation as a matter of urgency, a start on development will be made at the earliest possible moment.
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I am very glad, as I know all hon. members will be, that in this case the logical development of our plans enables us also to make some contribution to the restoration of an area which recently suffered an appalling and tragic disaster.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize for my failure to send him notice; however, it was only a few minutes ago that I realized he would be very anxious to comment on the press report to which I will refer.
Has the minister's attention been drawn to a press report in the Globe and Mail of this morning which reports that the Heinkel-Messerschmitt company of Germany are building 225 Starfighters for the United States and other allied air forces in Europe? Would the minister care to comment on this report, in view of the recent rejection by the United States of the Avro Arrow?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have no detailed information about that subject. It would be a matter for the government of West Germany and the government of the United States to arrange.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could the minister tell the house whether the federal government has received from the province of Newfoundland a request for assistance
Inquiries of the Ministry under the national health grants toward the construction of a hospital at Clarenville in N ewf oundland?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No such request has been received, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Rouleau (Dollard):: I would like
to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday I asked the minister if he had received any protests against the proposed increase in commuter rates in the Montreal district. His answer led the house to understand that no protests had been received. Has the minister read the article which appeared in this morning's Gazette to the effect that a public hearing is going to be held on March 15 to hear the 33 bodies -towns, chambers of commerce and citizen's associations-which have protested the proposed increase? Is the minister now in a position to tell the house if he has received protests from these bodies, or copies of protests sent to the board of transport commissioners, and will he do something to protect the interests of the commuters?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: When the hon. member asked me this question yesterday I did not say that no protests had been received; I said that I had not received any protests. I have since been in touch with the chief commissioner of the board of transport commissioners, and he advises me that it is the board's intention to suspend the tariff and hold public hearings.



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Rouleau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday I asked the minister if he were aware of the fact that the railway had cancelled passes formerly issued to railway employee commuters in the Montreal district. The minister told me that he was not aware of such action. For his information I have sent him a letter I received from one of my constituents protesting against this action which took place several days ago. Can the minister tell the house if he is going to do something to protect those employees and see that they get back their passes?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having advised me of his intention to ask this question. In view of this last representation I shall be glad to draw it to the attention of the management of Canadian National Railways.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Labour; I regret having not been able to give him notice. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether it is the intention of the government, if the government has not already done so, to ratify International Labour Organization convention No. 87, namely a convention concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, having special reference to article 4 thereof, which says:
Workers' and employers' organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been given any consideration.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask that this be given consideration?


Michael Starr: That will be given consideration.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether she could give the house any account of the reported disturbance on the Six Nations reserve?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have had just a very sketchy report up to date, but I understand that this morning a group supporting the hereditary chiefs read a proclamation on the steps of the council house, a copy of which has been forwarded to me and arrived in the noon mail. I have not yet had an opportunity to study it, but certainly the matter will be given very serious consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. lady any information as to whether there has been any intervention by the police?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the police were warned that this group intended to visit the council house and I understand they were in attendance, but so far as I know there was no intervention.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlhabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister inform the house of any preparations he may have made to receive the delegation of farmers expected from western Canada?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not catch that question.


Samuel Boulanger: Could the minister inform the house of any preparations he may have made to receive the delegation of farmers expected from western Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any preparations are necessary. I believe the farmers from western Canada have made their own arrangements. I understand that they have engaged the ballroom of the Chateau Laurier for a meeting at which they have asked members of the cabinet to be present to meet them. I do not know of any other preparations that are required.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NEW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am sorry I was unable to give him notice, but this question deals with a subject on which I believe he could answer with great facility. There is much concern as to the progress toward a new international wheat agreement-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say what position those discussions are in at the moment, whether an agreement as to price is likely to be made soon, and whether the United Kingdom will be coming into the agreement?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this subject is of great importance. The negotiations with regard to the international wheat agreement have been proceeding for some time, but I am not in a position to comment on the state

of those negotiations at the moment. We have every hope that the United Kingdom and other importing countries will enter that agreement, and we are confident that a suitable arrangement will be made with regard to price.	.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllraith (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question concerning the trade agreement with Russia. I understand the former trade agreement lapsed last Saturday. What is the position now with respect to trading with Russia?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I believe we dealt with this question just the other day. The negotiations with Russia are continuing, and we hope to be able to arrive at another trade agreement with that country in the course of time. The other agreement lapsed, but negotiations are going on in a very friendly spirit.


George James McIlraith: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the answer. Do I understand that at the moment there is no trade agreement with Russia?


Gordon Minto Churchill: At the moment, of Course not; but Russia enjoys most favoured nation treatment and has for a number of years now. There is no restriction with regard to our trade with that country.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Immigration branch
[Stage Direction]
52. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,199,386.
The Chairman:: This item will be found at page 12 of the blue book, details at page 137.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a question which relates to a number of European refugees who are not now and have not been for a number of years considered admissible to Canada. I would ask the minister if she and indeed the government will not consider the possible institution of a special program to deal specifically with the problem of these people.
v	'	;
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I refer to those who are described in the last report of the United Nations high com-, missioner for refugees as difficult cases, those refugees who because of age, illness or other incapacity are unable to earn their own subsistence and who have no relatives who can support them.
The position is this, Mr. Chairman. Owing to the state of health of these people, many of whom suffer from tuberculosis, mental illnesses and other afflictions, they are not and have hot been considered admissible to Canada for understandable reasons. But not only are these people inadmissible; the effect is that their families' afe also denied admission, because entry is not granted to any family a member of which is suffering from tuberculosis, mental illness or some other incapacity.
Obviously the situation of these people can become desperate if they are required to spend periods of years in camps for unsettled persons or alternative United Nations accommodation in Europe, with no solution in sight for the problem. There is no hope of their getting out of the camp and being accepted in any country other than the one in which they are residing as non-settled cases, and as long as the illness persists they are required to continue living in these European camps or other United Nations accommodation.
There is one alternative, but it is obviously unattractive to many. The members of some of these families who are not incapacitated by illness may come to Canada under certain conditions providing they are willing to leave the ill member behind, and many families are not willing to make this sacrifice. In the high commissioner's report it is stated that a recent survey has shown that among the nonsettled refugee population there were 4,700 difficult cases in camps including all family members, and at mid-summer of 1957 there were 16,300 non-settled difficult cases in alternative accommodation.
Certain countries within the United Nations have recognized the existence of a problem, have waived the regulations which make those people inadmissible, and have instituted special programs to take care of a number of them. Probably the best example of this is the program undertaken by Sweden and Denmark in conjunction with each other, in which they took 200 difficult cases and provided for them under a special program. The Swedish representative reported to the third committee of the United Nations that 200 of those cases have been successfully treated, brought to a cure and integrated into the community in both Sweden and Denmark.
I feel that this is a continuing problem that can never be resolved unless nations

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration such as Canada and others are prepared to institute special programs to deal with a particular situation. I would suggest that perhaps Canada is in a better position than most nations to undertake a program on behalf of tubercular cases in particular. If my information is correct, the incidence of tuberculosis in Canada has been considerably reduced in recent years, so much so that in one province at least a sanatorium that had been in operation for a great many years has been closed, since it is not longer necessary, and other similar institutions are operating at less than capacity in other parts of the country. Improved medical care and treatment, better preventive programs and so forth, have brought Canada into this relatively favourable position.
I feel, therefore, that Canada should join with Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, France, Italy and some of the other countries that have recognized the difficult situation of those refugees and institute on a trial basis-and I would suggest in the first instance on a trial basis only-a program designed to provide for the difficult cases and in particular those who are suffering from tuberculosis. This could mean, Mr. Chairman, that as few as 50 tubercular cases accepted into the country would provide a solution to the problem of 200 and more people, because there may be in many instances one tubercular case in a family unit. If we could provide a program of treatment, care and cure for one we would to some extent automatically solve the problem of a larger number.
I realize, of course, that it is not a simple program. There are complexities involved, and it would require greater expense for the handling of individual cases than would ordinarily happen. This is why I would suggest, particularly in view of the employment situation in the country at the present time, that the matter be studied now and if it could be instituted this year, if conditions are favourable, that it be done. But if it cannot, and if it does not seem feasible this year, preparations could be made so that such a program could be instituted at a time that is appropriate.
I believe there are a number of successful programs in addition to the Swedish one that Canada might use as a model for any trial program; but I also believe that the best case study we have in this particular regard is the project undertaken two years ago by Sweden and Denmark. Consequently it would not be necessary for the government of Canada to enter upon such a program without having the opportunity to understand exactly what was involved, what

costs were likely to be encountered and the degree of success that would likely be attained.
I think it can be readily understood by all hon. members of the committee that life in a refugee camp, or in any impermanent accommodation, without any other solution of the problems of the people involved, can become extraordinarily sterile because those people have no prospects of a solution of their individual problems. Naturally as it is borne in upon them that this life could go on for them without any future prospects of any attractiveness whatever, they are bound to become despondent. Those who are ill are bound to find those conditions weighing heavily on their minds, which would prejudice their chances of recovery and, in any event, the United Nations probably does not have available to it the sums necessary to effect complete cures of those cases which are well advanced or stubborn in response to treatment.
I think several countries such as Canada, which have a good record in the treatment of tuberculosis in particular, could help to solve this continuing problem. At least, Mr. Chairman, I feel that Canada is in a sound position to study the problem; for as long as the prospects of acceptance and resettlement are denied those people, as long as they have little hope of restoration to health, if they lose confidence in the good faith and good intentions of the people to whom they have turned for refuge, they can become prey to the influence of disaffection and hostility.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the influence of even a few who believe themselves to any degree to have been betrayed can spread fear beyond the bounds of a few European settlements. I fear that growing disaffection will be the consequence of failure to take the steps which are necessary to solve the problem of the difficult cases of those refugees. Therefore I would ask that Canada study the successful programs undertaken by certain European countries, which in many cases are not as favourably situated to handle those problems as we are, to see whether there is not some way in which we might undertake a similar program for the relief of at least a limited number of those difficult cases in Europe. Then on the basis of that trial program we can see whether Canada can institute a continuing program and consequently influence other countries to do the same, until the problem that exists in the European camps is eliminated forever.


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke on the very lofty and humane

appeal he has just made to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This is not a new problem; it is a problem with which I know the Department of Citizenship and Immigration of Canada, as well as those of of other countries, have been wrestling for some years now in an endeavour to clear up the old hard core of refugees who are still wandering about with no place to go. It is something which has come to the attention, I am sure, of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and we can only hope that the government will rise to the great heights of being humanitarian about this problem and will bring about as speedy a solution as possible.
Perhaps this too might fall into the category of the government at last recognizing the importance of large-scale immigration into Canada. During the nine or ten years I have had the privilege of being a member of the house there have been debates as to the advisability and necessity of encouraging large-scale immigration into our country, and I am pleased to see that at long last recognition has been given to that principle. It has been given by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and by the present Minister of Finance. The principle has also been recognized by the Prime Minister.
Only a short while ago I had occasion to refer to some remarks the minister made in what I believe to be her most recent speech outside the house, in which she emphasized as eloquently and as forcibly as anybody possibly could the importance of encouraging immigration into Canada. Let me read what she said on January 14, 1959 as reported in the Montreal Star:
Immigration minister Ellen Fairclough said today that immigrants have helped to bolster the Canadian economy by their consumer buying, by establishing new businesses and industry and by bringing money into the country. Mrs. Fairclough denied that immigrants were taking jobs away from native born workers.
I am sure hon. members will recognize that by that statement the minister has completely exploded the myth that immigrants who come to Canada take jobs away from Canadians. She was very clear and categorical; but in the event that there is any doubt on that score in the mind of any member let me continue, for purposes of emphasis, with what she said on that occasion:
Occasionally we hear that immigrants take work from native born Canadians and aggravate unemployment; this notwithstanding the oft-expressed view of reputable economists that there is little or no connection between immigration and unemployment.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
It is very encouraging for us to know that. In making her statement she gave details as to the amount of manufactured goods that new immigrants have consumed over a certain period and the amount of purchases they have made, so there should be absolutely no doubt in anybody's mind but that large-scale immigration would certainly stimulate employment in Canada.
I have also referred to the categorical support of the Prime Minister. In a report emanating from Toronto on April 26, 1957 I find that the Prime Minister said that Canada must have new population through immigration if it wants to hold and develop its resources. He went on to say at a press conference at the Canadian ethnic press club that "we must either populate or perish".
I therefore say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to hon. members in the house, particularly members of the government: Pay close heed to these words, "we must either populate or perish", words uttered by no less a personality than the Prime Minister himself. As I said previously, this view was also supported by the Minister of Finance when he brought down his last budget, and I feel that at long last the principle of large scale immigration into Canada is being accepted by the entire country.
In the event that some might think the labour unions still persist in their fear that immigrants might take away jobs, I am happy to say that this view has been exploded by economists who, as the minister has stated, certainly have made a study of the matter and are familiar with the problem. I should add in all fairness that the Prime Minister went on to make the statement that the only limit on immigration should be the capacity of Canada to absorb newcomers into her economic life. He added that Australia's forward looking immigration policy has produced the conclusion that it can absorb 4 per cent per year of its total population and that such a yardstick applied to Canada would establish a figure of 640,000 immigrants a year or more than four times the number that came to Canada in 1956.
There you have the Prime Minister of the country stating in clear and categorical terms that if Canada followed the yardstick employed by Australia it could absorb 640,000 new immigrants a year. In the light of what the minister herself and the Prime Minister have said about large-scale immigration, it is important for us to have a look at the figures for a moment to see what the government has accomplished in this regard since it took office. I now quote certain figures. In 1957, 282,164 immigrants came to Canada; and accepting the new trend toward large

Supply-Citizenship and. Immigration scale immigration one would have expected that In 1958 there would have been: a tremendous upsurge if that policy had been followed through. Instead we find a lamentable situation. In 1958 only 124,825 immigrants came to Canada, or less than half the number who came in 1957.
That is something that has puzzled me. The government has accepted the principle that large-scale immigration is- necessary and urgent. They have accepted and recognized the principle that immigrants do not take away jobs from Canadians. Where was there any hectic activity to increase immigration in 1958? Something happened in a mysterious way. I address myself to the minister for an explanation. What happened to her theory, her desire, her belief in large-scale immigration which resulted in this lamentable drop in the immigration figures?
It has been pointed out that there was a lower number of immigrants from the United Kingdom thdn ever before. This is something that has to be explained. I am wondering whether the immigration program is controlled administratively through the strictness of immigration regulations. I realize and can say from personal knowledge that without any doubt we certainly have most competent and efficient immigration officials. I have met them in Canada. I have met them in the various countries of Europe. I think they are of the highest type and are most conscientious, competent and capable men.
I feel, however, that their hands are tied. They are rigidly bound by regulations. In the light of this new approach to large-scale immigration I now want to make a plea to the minister to review the Immigration Act so as to allow the officials who meet prospective immigrants more latitude in dealing with them and more authority in making decisions about these matters, rather than having them bound rigidly by a discipline which is almost military in its form. They cannot go beyond the regulations.
Let me illustrate. An applicant for immigration comes before an official in Paris, London or Rome. The official sees the man, talks to him, is impressed by his appearance and his education, as well as his financial means. Here is a man who is most competent. He is well trained, a specialist in some field. Unfortunately that immigration official has no authority to say, "In my judgment this man would be a good immigrant for Canada, and I will issue a visa". He has not that latitude.
Why has he not that latitude? It is because this applicant may come from a country against which restrictions are imposed because of relationship. This man may not be the brother, father or son of . somebody in
[Mr. Crestohl.l
Canada, and under our Very strict regulations this might make it impossible for that mSn to come to Canada. You may have, on the one hand, the son of a Canadian citizen who applies to come to Canada and who is incompetent, who is impoverished, Who has no skills and no training. However, under our regulations he is admissible to Canada. The other man who is so extremely competent and most desirable is not eligible to enter Canada. I therefore again urge the minister to see that her officials abroad, who meet these immigrants and talk * to ' them, who look into their eyes, who hear their replies and who cross-examine these men, have more latitude.
\ I beg your pardon? I did not hear the hon. member. I thought he said something about blue eyes, and most certainly indeed blue eyes should be admissible to Canada. Anything else that is blue would be admissible, and I am sure the hon. member would agree with me.
I want to point out something else to illustrate why I believe a review of the immigration act is now due. The last time it was revised was some years ago, and in the light of the change in the entire theory of immigration I think the act should be revised now, especially if we really do want to populate Canada. There should be a revision if we want to take the advice and leadership of the Prime Minister, who said "populate or perish". I consider that a root trend in government policy in connection with immigration, and in the light of that root trend our immigration regulations should be so redrafted that they could meet this trend. It will be impossible to do so under present regulations, even with the best will on the part of all our immigration officials and the best will on the part of the government.
Let me give some illustrations. I draw to your attention that under the Immigration Act parliament has given authority to the government to make regulations, and it is interesting to note the grounds upon which anybody may be denied entrance to Canada. These grounds are not contained in our law, they are not contained in the act which came before parliament and which parliament examined. All these prohibitions and all these permissions are contained in the regulations which parliament never saw. The regulations were prepared by the government or by departmental officials and were enacted by order in council. I think this is rather unfortunate. I do not know whether or not these regulations could be held illegal by a competent court.
However, these are the regulations which govern and control immigration into Canada, and which never came before the House of

Commons or any committee of the house. I want to deal with them. For example, people are admitted from some countries if they are unmarried children under 21 years of age. If a child were 22 years of age that child would not be admitted. I ask hon. members, is an unmarried child 22 years of age less beloved by its parents than an unmarried child 20 years of age? The 20 year old child is admitted, but the 22 year old child is not admitted.
Then, too, the unmarried orphaned nephew or niece under 21 years of age is admitted. It is quite possible that an orphaned nephew or niece who is over 21 years of age is not admissible into Canada. Well, we want to be sympathetic and we want to consider these things. Here are anomalies in our laws which are difficult to accept. You have too, Mr. Speaker, the fact that a father who is over 65 years of age is admissible, or a mother who is over 60 years of age.
Now, I ask this question on whatever ground you want to approach it. If a father is 64 years of age or if a mother is 59 years of age and they want to join their children in Canada, why should there be that prohibition? Why should we say, because you are not yet over 65 you cannot come to your children, or because the mother is not over 60 she cannot join the family here? These are anomalies in the law which I do not criticize. I feel that at the time they were enacted they were created in order to control the flow of immigration from various countries. However, if we believe in the humanitarian grounds to which reference has been made, certainly a revision of regulations of this kind would be well justified.
Let me give you another illustration, and on this I make a direct appeal to the minister. Brothers and sisters of Canadian citizens who came from Poland are admissible into Canada. If you are not a Canadian citizen, even though you have lived here for 10 or 15 years, you cannot bring your brother or sister from Poland to Canada. Well, perhaps that is a privilege that is extended to the brothers and sisters of Canadian citizens, but I should like to appeal to the minister. If a person comes to Canada from Poland and has been here for three years or four years and then finds he would like to bring a sister from Poland to Canada, then I would appeal to the minister to extend that category. I would say that people who are landed immigrants in Canada, whether or not they are yet naturalized, should be permitted to bring their brothers or sisters into Canada.
At one time, and not so many years ago, even brothers and sisters of Canadian citizens were not admitted into Canada. I remember that I was on a delegation which waited on
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the minister and deputy minister and appealed to them to allow brothers and sisters to emigrate to Canada. We had a good reception, and both the minister and the deputy minister at the time agreed to amend or arrange the regulations so as to allow brothers and sisters to enter Canada provided the applicants in Canada were Canadian citizens.
I now appeal to them again. There are not many more of those people left in Poland. They have practically all come. There may still be some left in Poland whose brothers and sisters in Canada are not yet Canadian citizens. It would be in line and consistent with the minister's desire and intention to be considerate and humane about the matter to extend that category.
The same thing applies to another group. The department showed much compassion and consideration to the unfortunate refugees who were compelled to get out of Egypt. Some of those who also had to get out of Poland and made their escape out of that country-they were able to get out; it is not always easy to get out of those countries- made their escape into France or into Austria. Under existing regulations these refugees who flooded those countries are not permitted to come to Canada unless they sit around somewhere in Europe for at least two years.
At the time I could understand the purpose of that regulation, but all those reasons are now fairly well exhausted. I think the minister and the department, having regard to our desire to populate Canada, should extend that category to include refugees and escapees from Poland and from Egypt. I know it would be a humanitarian act, and it certainly would be much appreciated. It would also be consistent with the appeal made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke.
I should like to raise another point, Mr. Chairman, and deal with the question of those who have come to Canada as visitors. I appeal to the committee to take note of this painful situation, which I think requires to be remedied. I now speak of cases with which I am personally familiar. A man comes to Canada as a visitor. He is in Canada for a month or two and then asks for permanent landing. He is examined. He is found to be a man of means, of education and of competence, but he is told, "When you left Europe you were asked whether you were going to Canada as a tourist or whether you were going to Canada with the intention of settling there, and you said you were going as a tourist". The charge is, "You did not tell us the truth", and the man is told, "Go back to Europe and make your application there". Strictly speaking that

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Draconian application of the law and the regulations could be right; but having regard to common sense, fairness and the economy of the thing itself, I do not think that a man, after he has been in Canada, decides that he would like to remain here and makes his request, should be told to go back to Europe. It is not merely a question of the expenditure of $1,000. One gentleman with a large capital to bring to Canada-in fact he had it here- told me, "If Canada does not want me I can find other countries to which to emigrate''. He said, "I will go to Australia, or I will go to South America". The Prime Minister at one stage said that we have lost many good immigrants through strict interpretation of the regulations. I should like to give that quotation:
The Conservatives, he continued, will end the arbitrary and unjust interpretation of immigration regulations which have been a feature of Liberal immigration policy.
At another place he made another statement. I just cannot find the quotation at the moment, but he stated that Canada has lost a great many good immigrants by a harsh interpretation of the regulations. I feel that if we in Canada are approaching an era in which we propose to expand our immigration, the minister and her officials should take a second look or another look-and a good one-at our regulations which I find are sharp, harsh and Draconian.
I know that many of our immigration officials are most sympathetic and have expressed that sympathy; but unfortunately they say, 'My hands are tied; I must follow the regulations". The regulations are harsh, Mr. Chairman, they could stand much revision. If only we had that confidence in our immigration officials abroad to allow them to exercise their discretion based on their training, their knowledge, the fact that they have met the prospective immigrants; and if they find they are desirable immigrants, to give them authority to issue a visa-that is the way in which we will get good immigrants, rather than have them sit around in some city in Europe, write to Ottawa and ask for a permit.
Of course there are certain requirements that are basic. Every immigrant must be in good health and must have a good moral record. These are basic requirements. Certainly every immigrant must, after investigation, be acceptable to Canada. He must not be a communist. Once these basic requirements are met, what difference does it make whether, as a father, he is 66 years of age or 64 years of age, or whether as a brother he is 21 years of age or 20 years of age, or whether he comes from this country or that country? If he is a desirable
[Mr. Crestohl.l
immigrant, if he has the means, if he is useful, if he can help to build the economy of Canada, I believe we should give the immigration officials abroad the authority and power to exercise their discretion and their sympathy. I do not think that the department will make any mistake if it will show full confidence in all its immigration officials abroad and not have them held tightly by a series of Draconian-I repeat the term -or harsh regulations.
Maybe that sort of thing was necessary at the time Canada's policy was restricted or selective immigration, but certainly my appeal is supported by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and by the Minister of Finance. If we are now taking a new trend in immigration, let us make it possible by giving our officials the necessary authority.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak quite briefly this afternoon. What I have to say represents the opinions of some people in my constituency who are members or supporters of all parties in this house, who are much concerned about the question of immigration.
First of all I want to thank the minister for her willingness to give information when it is sought and to reply at considerable length to letters from a member who on occasion is extremely troublesome. I want to compliment the senior staff and the officials of the immigration branch. I think anyone who has had anything to do with this problem realizes that they have some extremely difficult and trying situations with which to deal. You always do when dealing with human beings.
I also want to include the local officials in southeastern British Columbia, whom I know very well indeed and who have been very harassed on occasions in the last year or two by the burden imposed upon them through unexpected immigration policies and things of that sort. I have admired the way they have carried on their duties, at considerable inconvenience and discomfort on occasion, and I might say I am of the opinion that Ottawa does not always quite realize what it is asking the local officials to do. In some cases they have been asked to do a bit too much.
Having made those complimentary remarks, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about immigration, because I have discussed this matter with some of the people in the labour movement, at veterans' meetings, women's associations, and with business people and a good number of people on the street. I associate with my people; I like to find out what they are thinking. I suppose

it is because of the recession-I think that is the correct term-of the last year that there is more concern about this problem than there has been for some years.
We in this group, as the minister knows, stand for an immigration policy planned according to the capacity of the country to absorb immigrants. I think that is a very sound stand, and it is a policy which, in one direction or another, can be made elastic to meet changing circumstances. I think when considering immigration at this time we have to realize we have nearly half a million unemployed Canadians in Canada. While we cannot expect to occupy this vast land without providing opportunities for people from other lands, our first responsibility is to the people of Canada, particularly under these circumstances. In our opinion only those immigrants should be brought to Canada, with the exception of a few refugees I want to mention later, who can go to assured employment or who are not going to be a charge on the public exchequer because they are going to be cared for by relatives or sponsors until they obtain employment, and are assured of housing without displacing Canadian citizens.
The hon. member who just preceded me argued that under present circumstances immigrants do not take jobs away from Canadians. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that is absolutely untrue and not according to the facts. I can speak with some knowledge on this matter because I have had cases brought to my attention. I would like to mention one case of a veteran who fought for this country, not against it, for five years, now living in the city of Nelson, who was unemployed for several months. He was an electrician who registered at the national employment service and was unable to obtain employment. An immigrant-and I do not blame him-coming from central Europe obtained a job as an electrician within three days of arriving in Canada. He took the job which the Canadian veteran should have had.
Another illustration. I happen to be associated in a very small way in the lumber industry and meet quite a lot of people interested in that industry and engaged in it. I know of a case where five immigrants obtained employment in one lumber company's mill, while in a neighbouring small village there were a good number of Canadians seeking employment who had registered with the employment service. I have had numerous illustrations brought to my attention of that type, particularly during last year. So it just is not correct to say that immigrants do not take jobs away from Canadians; under certain circumstances they
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration do. I have been asked to bring this to the attention of the ministry by some very good citizens in my constituency representing all parties, and I might tell the minister that very prominent supporters of her party have written some rather caustic letters in the press about these matters.
Why do they get these jobs? As I say, I am not blaming the immigrants at all. They get jobs often before Canadians who have been unemployed for some months. I see the former minister of immigration looking at me. I am sure he will differ with me more and more on this point as I proceed with my remarks. But why do they get these positions? Because the average Canadian registers at the national employment service and waits for a call for a job. He has not the money to travel all round the country. The immigrant gets a special service. The officials of the department travel all over the country looking for jobs for immigrants. I do not blame them; it is their duty, and it causes them quite a headache. In one case they went to a small company with which I am acquainted and begged the manager to take on one or two of these people. They said, "They have dumped down a number of people and we have to distribute them somehow." Then if someone is needed in the mills or in the woods at that moment the manager often says he will give them an opportunity.
I might say that this company gave three or four the opportunity, but as they were only able to make $12 a day splitting fence posts they resigned after four days and went to live at the government of Canada's expense at a hotel in Nelson. That is a fact, because I followed the case up. We have had a number of illustrations like that, but of course they are a few of the bad eggs.
So the Canadian unemployed are placed at a disadvantage under these circumstances. That is why, on behalf of a great number of people in my constituency, I do urge that this question be given very careful consideration so that we do not have the situation where immigrants are brought to this country and forced to compete with Canadians, take their jobs away on occasion, or live at the public expense until they can find employment.
I think the formula I have outlined is sound. They should be brought to this country when there is assured employment or when they are going to be cared for by relatives or sponsors until they have obtained employment, and when they have an opportunity to obtain satisfactory housing without competing for scarce housing with Canadian citizens. This question is of growing concern to labour organizations in British Columbia. No
1636	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration doubt the minister has seen statements in recent days, weeks or months in that respect.
Having said what I intended to say on that question, I now want to say a few words about the representations made by Chinese Canadian organizations with respect to the admission of certain relatives. I want to express my support for the briefs of those organizations. I have had a lot to do with a small number of Chinese Canadians over a long period of years, and I must say I never found that these people came to the government for assistance or support. They make good citizens and are hard workers; and as I have said before in this house I know some two or three hundred in my constituency and in other places, and they are very popular generally with the other people in the district. I do urge that the representations of their organizations be given favourable consideration.
I do want to express my support for the plea made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke for the admission of a certain number of refugees. I am not going to deal at length with this question, because I thought he spoke very well indeed on it. I think we have had a moral obligation to these people, and I have said this over a period of years. I understand there are still some few thousands in refugee camps, and some have been there for a good many years. I think in that connection, and on strictly humanitarian grounds, we should give some consideration to their plight and accept our share in liquidating this long term and unfortunate problem. I endorse entirely what the hon. member said in this respect.
Now I come to my concluding remarks. Last year I was going to ask the minister a series of questions with respect to the immigration of Hungarians into Canada, but as I happened to be called out of the house I did not have that opportunity. However, I wrote the minister a letter in which I asked the questions which I had been requested to ask by persons in labour organizations, by veterans and by students at the University of British Columbia. The minister replied at some length and completely answered my question and I thank her for that. In her letter she mentioned that as of September 8, 1958, the total approximate cost had been $14,413,929.05-I like that 5 cents. I will not go into a complete breakdown of the costs.
The hon. lady proceeded to answer the other questions I had been requested to put to her. She wrote me as follows:
In reply to your third question, the Sopron forestry faculty was brought to British Columbia from Vienna at a transportation cost to the Canadian government of approximately $105,000 and provided with accommodation and maintenance at a cost to the Canadian government of approximately $347,190


-an approximate total cost of $452,190, or about $1,482 for each member of the group of 305. The cost is approximate only because these refugees were accommodated in immigration hostels at different times since their arrival and while there, the cost has been assessed at $2.25 per person per day.
With regard to your fourth question, of the 305 members of the Sopron forestry faculty, there were 190 students, 28 members of the faculty and staff, and 90 dependents (3 dependents were also students).
I have always been amazed at the large size of this faculty in view of the fact that Hungary is a grain-growing country and has a relatively small forestry industry. While all parties in this house supported the estimates required for the bringing of these people to this country under emergency conditions, and I think we have been very generous indeed, I am one who under the present circumstances thinks there comes a time to call a halt. The enthusiasm with respect to this migration has considerably lessened in recent years no doubt due to the lapse of time and various contacts and incidents that arose in various places across Canada in connection with some of these people.
I was interested in listening to the appeal of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate on behalf of the Sopron faculty and students at the University of British Columbia for assistance for them to complete their education at the university. I well understand his good intentions in that respect. However we have already been very generous. We brought all these people here and paid their expenses but when we are asked to do what he proposes I suggest we should remember that there are hundreds of young Canadians who have not been able to finish their university course in the last year owing to the fact that they were unable to obtain employment, last summer particularly, between the closing and the opening of the universities.
We have young Canadians who were former students of the University of British Columbia and who were unable to continue their courses at the university this year because they found it impossible to obtain employment during the summer months. I believe we should give consideration to that fact and therefore I have been asked to express the objection of a good number of people who are supporters of all parties in this house, as I said before, to this proposal while we have young Canadians unable to continue their university courses because of being unable to obtain employment. I think we should treat all these people at least on an equal basis. I cannot support giving this ultra-generous treatment to this small group of people when we know, as I have already

mentioned, there are a good number of young Canadians unable to continue university courses in Canada this year.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned the fact that if we did not complete this operation it would serve to give the soviet government the laugh on us, as it were. I think that was the purport of the hon. member's words. The government of Russia, he suggested, could be critical of our being unable to complete this project. I do not think the government of the U.S.S.R. gives tuppence whether we complete it or not, and I believe we have to view the question in the light of the money we have available and also in the light of our responsibilities to young Canadian citizens first.
On behalf of the people who have mentioned this to me I wish to take exception to the payment of the fees for these people to complete their courses at the University of British Columbia unless we are willing at the same time to do the same for the young Canadians who live in British Columbia and who are unable to complete their courses for the very same reasons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I may be permitted to say a word or two in reply to the last observations that were made in a spirit which is not the usual spirit of the hon. member for Kootenay West. I need not say I disagree completely with every word he said about the Sopron faculty. I find it very difficult to reconcile the utterly ungenerous attitude he took in this matter with his appeal to the minister for generosity to other refugees which immediately preceded it. I am going to say to the hon. gentleman what was said last summer by the hon. member for Assiniboia who sits beside him when this parliament voted $40 million for the grain farmers of western Canada. The hon. member for Assiniboia rose and said, "I hope nobody is going to say that this should not be done unless something is also done for the fishermen."
It seems to me the suggestion that we should not do something that is good in itself because something is not going to be done for somebody else is a very dubious argument. This parliament practically since the time of the Korean war has voted approximately $2 billion a year to the defence and security of the free world. Why? Because we believe there is a struggle going on in the world between those people and nations who believe in freedom and those that want to subjugate the whole world to a communist tyranny.
It so happened about two years ago that owing to certain events that took place in Hungary 200,000 and more people left that country and went to Austria. It is true that 66968-9-104
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration among them were a limited number who fled in the early stages because they had belonged to the communist secret police. There were a few bad eggs among those who came to Canada and when I spoke the other day I said that no one was more pleased than I was to see these bad eggs go back. But it seems to me that the hon. member for Kootenay West has completely ignored what the real situation was at the time the action we are now discussing was taken. These 200,000 Hungarians simply could not stay in Austria. The Austrian state with only 6 million people simply did not have the resources to look after them. Canada, in concert with most of the other countries of the free world, did its share to see that these people were accommodated elsewhere because most of us in this country at that time, I think, believed that if the free world was so bankrupt of statesmanship and wealth that it was going to allow these people to go back to Hungary and be deported to Siberia it would be just as serious as losing any other engagement in the cold war and perhaps more serious and demoralizing to all the people behind the iron curtain who long for freedom.
It happened that among the people who came to Austria from only 10 miles across the Austrian border and from an area that is forested and has been for years, from one of the oldest forestry schools in the western world, was the whole forestry faculty of Sopron university. I heard about this faculty when I was in Vienna. I went personally to see them. First, I got in touch with my colleague of those days, the minister of fisheries, Mr. Sinclair, who got in touch with the leading members of the forest industry in British Columbia and received assurances of a good deal of help for those people, particularly from the Powell River Company who did a magnificent job of receiving the forestry faculty and getting them started on life in Canada. Now, there was-I do not say an undertaking because there was not an undertaking-I have had this out with the faculty myself-a feeling that this faculty would remain intact and the students would be allowed to complete their studies. My view then, and my view today is that when we had the opportunity to get those young people already half trained professionally rather than just taking the run of the mine of the same number of Hungarian refugees, we were doing a good job for Canada and I still think so, and I believe that in the long run that is going to be demonstrated.
No doubt, like other students, there will be a few among them, a very few I think, who will not turn out to amount to very much but I believe that most of them are going to

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration be a great success and a great credit to Canada. I think myself that the people of British Columbia are very lucky to have got people already half trained on whom otherwise it might have had to spend thousands and thousands out of taxes for education.
The hon. gentleman talks about Canadian students who are not able to get back to the University of British Columbia because they were not able to get jobs last summer. We all regret cases of that sort. We know there have been some cases of that sort, but let us remember what the situation is for these students who, except for their own little community, have no family connections in Canada. They have no connections; they had no previous contacts here in Canada. At a time when we do have a recession, at a time when we do have unemployment, at a time when the hon. gentleman himself, in the earlier part of his speech, was complaining that immigrants were coming here and taking the jobs of Canadians, a proposition about which I could say something but I will refrain, it does seem to me that it would be a very short-sighted thing, even from the point of view that the hon. gentleman himself has in mind, if those students were suddenly deprived of the means of continuing their studies and were thrown on the labour market in the middle of the winter. It does not occur to me that anybody in British Columbia would benefit from that at this time.
No problem would ever have arisen, as I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree with me, if the conditions in the forest industry of British Columbia had remained in 1957 and 1958 what they were in 1955 and 1956. When the assurances were given to Mr. Sinclair, as they were, they were given on the assumption, which many people made, that the kind of buoyant condition of employment in the forest industries was going to continue. Unfortunately it did not continue and that caused the problem.
Most of the funds required for the support of those students are being provided by other means but the University of British Columbia has made what for a great rich country like Canada is a very modest request for a small amount of help out of the national treasury. I think myself that we would look pretty small not only in our own eyes but in the eyes of other countries, if we feel that because a few people here and there are going to criticize us we cannot behave like adults in the world and deal generously with this problem.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I also wish to join with those who have preceded me in complimenting the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on her forward look on immigration. The hon. member for Cartier
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
referred to the speech which the minister made recently in the city of Montreal. The speech indicated that of the immigrants who were admitted to Canada during the past few years, relatively few are in the ranks of the unemployed.
I rather liked what the minister had to say regarding the often heard remark that immigrants are taking jobs away from the native born, which is an old prejudice. Besides being unreasonable it is absolutely unjustified. Therefore, I cannot agree completely with the hon. member for Kootenay West who made reference to immigrants displacing Canadian-born from their jobs. I heartily endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke with regard to the refugees in concentration camps in Europe at the present time. This fact proves conclusively the importance of adopting a realistic immigration policy based on the ability of the country to absorb immigrants.
Mr. Rhys M. Sale, president of the Ford Motor Company, made a speech recently in the city of Toronto from which I wish to quote a few paragraphs because I think it is very apt. He said:
[DOT]'Canada should be able to absorb a halt million people annually, from natural increase and from immigration, without the slightest pressure. True, we may have periods of economic adjustment when unemployment may become a temporary problem, but we should not allow that to have too much influence upon our immigration policies. We have abundant room for people, abundant resources to be developed. We have too much of everything to justify undue restriction of population growth."
Since 1945 Canada has received 1,800,000 immigrants and already more than a million of their children have been born on Canadian soil. "Ninety per cent not only emigrated from their homelands of their own free will, but came to Canada by choice," Mr. Sales said. "They could as easily have gone to other countries, such as Australia, which would have welcomed them with open arms. Instead they caught the image of Canada and decided this was the land of freedom and opportunity in which they preferred to make a future for themselves and their children. It should make us proud to have them with us."
Then, on February 24, 1959, Mr. W. A. McFaul, superintendent of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, made a speech in Montreal from which I wish to quote a few paragraphs which are very revealing. Mr. McFaul said:
Of 124,800 immigrants to Canada last year only 18,600 were helped by the department in finding work on the open labour market.
The remaining 106,200 were dependants, sponsored workers and immigrants admitted for selfestablishment, he said in addressing the Royal-mount Kiwanis club.
It was too little known that only a relatively small proportion of the total number of immigrants seek employment on the open labour market. Each year Canada was acquiring valuable skilled workers

and professional men whose education and training had cost Canada nothing and whose presence tended to offset the loss of trained Canadians through emigration. Mr. McFaul said in the past nine years immigrants had established in Canada a total of 2,358 small business enterprises by purchase at a cost of $27,602,500, and 84 by rental. Immigrants in 1958 alone bought farms in every province except Newfoundland.
Of course, all this sounds very good but what are we doing about it? Does the government have a realistic immigration policy? Notwithstanding all these encouraging statements, I have reason to believe that as far as European immigrants are concerned the doors are shut tight, with few exceptions, owing to the present unusual unemployment situation throughout the country aggravated by lay-offs as a result of the suspension of the activities of Avro. I do not advocate a wide open immigration policy but I do believe that persons sponsored by responsible citizens who are able bodied, of good character and in good health should not be barred from entering the country. I know of specific cases where applications of prospective young immigrants who were sponsored and guaranteed employment were not approved. I should like to ask the minister what the present policy of the government is with respect to such people.
I would also urge a more sympathetic approach by the government to Asiatic or coloured applicants for admission to Canada. People of Asiatic descent have made a substantial contribution to this country and I feel that if others of these races are allowed to enter they too will contribute to the growth and prosperity of Canada. If we are to develop the northwestern part of our country, about which we hear so much, then let us adopt a policy of settlement based not only on present but on futui-e needs because if this country is going to take its place in the world-the pioneers of half a century ago predicted that the twentieth century would belong to Canada-then we should have such a policy.
I have the highest respect and admiration for the present minister because she is efficient and has undoubtedly conducted her department in such a manner as to gain for her not only the respect of the house but of Canadians everywhere, and if she will present a policy to parliament I am sure it will be approved unanimously. I want to wish her and her officials in the department every success because we are very much interested in their work. I am very much interested because in my own constituency we need immigrants of the right sort to settle on land which is entirely suitable for colonization and farming. The land is there waiting for somebody to come there and work it.
66968-9-1044
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
It is not my intention to speak at any length because a lot has been said and repeated and no doubt there will be more repetition, but I do not want to end with the thought that immigration is the No. 1 problem facing our country today, a problem which has to be settled in such a manner that the results will be to the advantage of our great country.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak only briefly in what has been a very interesting and thoughtful debate. My purpose in rising is to echo as forcefully as I can the remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I think there are perhaps two fundamental reasons why his suggestion, which has been endorsed by a great many members of the committee this afternoon, should be considered very seriously by the minister and her department and by the government. First, I am informed by some of the doctors in the house that facilities in the form of hospital space are available for the treatment of tubercular patients. I know that over the years Canada has prided itself on winning the war against tuberculosis. No doubt there are other diseases in the same category. The mere fact that we have been able to accomplish this victory against what was once a dread disease should give us all the more reason to assist- these people from abroad who are in the unfortunate position of being victims of it.
The second reason why I support the remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke is simply that since the war I believe a good number of thinking Canadians have developed what might be called a bad conscience about the immigration policy of this country. In certain countries abroad we have become known as healthy body snatchers. We have taken the best of the unfortunate victims of the war and the aftermath of war in Europe and we have left the infirm and the ill there to fend for themselves. I say that this has given rise to pricks of bad conscience in this country.
Certainly we should do whatever is possible to put Canada in the same position as some of the countries of northwestern Europe which have not only taken the well unto themselves and made them citizens but have also permitted the sick to come along with their families. I think this could be accomplished by the minister and the department by establishing some sort of policy. Admittedly it would have to take into account the medical facilities available in different parts of Canada and have regard to those provinces in which there are facilities for the treatment of tubercular cases. It would also have to
1640	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
take into account the employment problem that is besetting us, but all in all I believe that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revel-stoke and others who have supported his idea have made a sound and strong proposal and I hope that the minister will give it her best and most serious consideration, as I am sure she will.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion immigration to this country should be allowed on the basis of the country's capacity to absorb newcomers. I am expressing my own personal views.
Under present circumstances, however, I feel it would be better to curtail immigration. This, as I see it, is the only sound approach to the matter.
At no time in the past was the former government willing to consider the country's interests, nor those of the immigrants, and Canada's gates were thrown wide open at a time when many Canadians had trouble finding jobs. As a result, Mr. Chairman, unemployment grew worse and, bitter discontent was felt among immigrants who. instead of improving their lot, had sometimes made it worse.
Need I mention, Mr. Chairman, that in the federal riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and more particularly in St. Paul l'Ermite, some immigrants staged a hunger strike?
We should not bring in people who will be unable to find a job or will be taking jobs away from Canadians with families. Very often, immigration is a source of economic and social wealth for a country. However, it would be illogical to think of welcoming to Canada people seeking work when a great many Canadians are in a similar predicament.
Socialists, for instance, who are forever talking of "liberty", sometimes reply that we have no right to bar the way to people who want to settle in Canada. To my mind, this is wrong. Admission to Canada is to the foreigner a privilege and not a right. And this privilege should be granted only in cases where it is considered unlikely to affect the general interest of the Canadian nation. If a foreigner is free to leave his own country, a Canadian should also, and perhaps more particularly, be free to enjoy a decent standard of living here at home.
Mr. Chairman, most immigrants who have come over in recent years have become excellent citizens. Yet a number of them
[Mr. McCleave.l

find it hard to make a living. Others have gone away dispirited and now indulge in anti-Canadian propaganda as false as it is detrimental. All that would not have happened if the former government had been alive to its responsibilities and had asked people to this country-


Mr. Habel:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. member wishes to put a question to me, he can do so after I am through with my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, the unfortunate thing is that only a small proportion of immigrants settle in rural areas. In the past few years, immigrants have been entering Canada and settling mostly in the cities. Some 30 years ago, it was the opposite. The department states, for instance, that immigrants have been more inclined, in the past few years, to settle in highly industrialized centres, like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Between 1920 and 1930, 41 per cent settled in the prairies provinces, 35 per cent in Ontario, 13 per cent in Quebec and 7 per cent in British Columbia. However, in the last seven years, only 10 per cent took up residence in the prairies, while the percentage of immigrants settling in Ontario rose to 53 per cent, and in Quebec, to 20 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, I very humbly leave these suggestions, which I am making in a personal capacity, to the consideration of the house.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Chairman, may I now be allowed to direct a question to the hon. member? Is he aware, when blaming the former administration, that on February 16, 1955, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) introduced a motion of nonconfidence accusing the government of not doing enough for immigration?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, my answer to my hon. friend is this. I believe that if it is intended that immigrants be allowed to enter the country, it should be done in accordance with government policy, and I feel that the policy followed by the former government in all circumstances has not been favourable to our fellow Canadians.
I mentioned a moment ago that in the federal constituency of Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm-and this was under the previous administration when the department was headed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)- a hunger strike was staged in St. Paul l'Ermite, and I say that such occurrences are detrimental to Canadian interests and gives Canada a bad name abroad. However, I am quite agreeable to having immigrants

come to this country as long as the country can absorb them, and I favour the principle that this government keep their number within the bounds of our absorption capacity.
(Text):


Mr. Kucherepa:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to make my contribution to this debate. I do not intend to speak at any length. First of all, I should like to express my support for the remarks made in the house today by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. I think the hon. member put forward an idea which is worthy of investigation and which has many positive features to it. He referred to those "lost souls" in the camps who are still left in Europe, primarily in Germany. A great many of these people would be worthwhile citizens of Canada if they could be rehabilitated because many of their relatives and friends are to be found in this country.
I was very happy to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Halifax because he referred to some of the things which I had contemplated mentioning. There is no question but that in the field of tuberculosis Canada has made great progress. We do have a great many experts in this field. We are happy to note that our conquest of this disease has reached a point which is a matter of pride for all Canadians. I believe we might well utilize these institutions, if at all possible, for the rehabilitation of some of these unfortunate people. We do make great contributions in many ways through other agencies toward humanitarian work. I might mention the Colombo plan as an example. This would be a further contribution which Canada might make in a field which is so close to the hearts of so many of the Canadian people.
There is one other point I should like to mention and that relates to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I am very happy on this occasion to agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate in the statements he made concerning the students who are today attending the University of British Columbia, and who came here as a faculty from Hungary during those fateful days when Hungary was attempting to obtain her freedom from communism. I think I should point out to those hon. members who may not agree with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that these people came to us in the prime of life. I presume that today most of them would be in their late twenties. We have never had to spend money on them for public school or high school education. There were no baby bonuses paid for them and some of their university educational costs were paid before they came here. Before very long these
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration students will be making a real contribution in their professional capacity to the Canadian economy.
There may be criticism of the fact that we are giving them this extra help. However, when you consider the need for professional men in this country I think that can be justified. During the past few weeks we have heard about this problem in connection with the cancellation of the CF-105 and the possibility of losing some of our professional men in this field to other countries. Here is an opportunity for Canada to gain professional men in another specific field related to an industry which is of great importance to this country.
On the whole, I should like to say that I agree with most of the remarks which have been made by some hon. members today relative to the immigration problems which face us. I might mention that undoubtedly the great boom which has occurred in Ontario, the province from which I come, has been due in no small measure to the fact that we have had a larger number of immigrants come into this area. These immigrants have accounted, I believe, for a greater production of materials and undoubtedly this has been one of the major reasons that Ontario has enjoyed a tremendous expansion.
In conclusion I only wish to reiterate that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke, the hon. member for Halifax and, in the case of the students at the University of British Columbia, with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I believe that these several items can be considered primarily on humanitarian grounds. I am sure that as Canadians we are all anxious that Canada's record not only amongst Canadians but among those beyond the shores of this country should be clear in this regard. In the particular case of the Hungarian people I would say that the western world, feeling as it did and coming to the aid of the Hungarians during those trying days, can do no less than try to rehabilitate and assist in some tangible way some of those unfortunate people who were able to get away from communism. In this regard I am hoping that something further can be done to show our appreciation of those people and of what they represent, and in this way to show to other people, who may be looking at Canada and her attitude in international affairs, that we are a humanitarian people.
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my intention to take part in this afternoon's debate, but on listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration calm (Mr. Pigeon), I could not help as a Canadian citizen living in this great country, being shocked by his statements, especially when he blamed the former government for admitting to Canada people who today are our brothers, working hand in hand with us for a greater Canada.
I strongly object to the ideas put forward by the hon. member and to his criticism of the former government's policy.
The former administration had applied in this country an economic policy which would have guaranteed employment not only to native born Canadians, but also to those who came from Europe and elsewhere in the world to swell our ranks.
Mr. Chairman, when the Liberals were at the helm and I was sitting on the government side, I remember on many occasions when several Conservative members-who were then in the opposition and are now in the cabinet- rose in their places and rebuked the Liberal government for not letting enough new Canadians come into this country. Amongst those who thus passed censure on the Liberal government were the present right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough)-
(Text):


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member is wrong. Never at any time did he hear me speak in that vein in this house.
(Translation):


Guy Rouleau: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for including in my list the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; but she will no doubt agree with me that the then members of the opposition did make speeches in this house casting blame on the Liberal government, which was administering the country at the time, for not letting in enough new Canadians.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we are now being told by a Conservative member that immigration should be restricted, which in my opinion-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member-


Guy Rouleau: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Guy Rouleau: Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to reply to any question of the hon. member when I am finished with my remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I object to an hon. member stating as was done this afternoon by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, that we should curtail immigration. In my opinion, ours is a vast and rich country, of immeasurable natural wealth, and I believe we have an obligation to share this wealth with other citizens of the world. Christian charity commands us to share this wealth lavished upon us by a bountiful Providence and personally I am convinced that by letting in citizens from other parts of the world, we are not making ourselves poorer but that on the contrary, we are adding to our riches.
Attempts have been made in certain quarters to suggest that people coming here from other parts of the world are taking jobs away from native-born Canadians. Mr. Chairman, I cannot concur in this view, because whenever a new citizen is admitted into this country, thus adding to our population he needs food and shelter and this, in my opinion, creates employment. This new fellow-citizen not only does not make us poorer, but adds to Canada's wealth. The more people there are in this fine and great country, the less it will cost to provide the people of Canada with the services they require.
In closing those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I wish to pay tribute to those who have come from other countries to live among the people of Canada. We are greatly indebted to them and I am pleased to mention among them a man who immigrated to Canada and gave us our present Prime Minister. I am happy to note that the Prime Minister comes from an immigrant family to mention but that one case.
In business, in industry and other related fields, we find people who have come from other countries of the world to give us their support. We are proud to have them among us, and I hope that in the future, the government will continue to apply, with a sense of Christian charity, the policy whereby we open Canada's doors to citizens from other parts of the world for our country's enrichment.
(Text):


Mr. Speakman:: I must agree heartily with the plea made by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke when he asked that consideration be given to the admission of the ill and disabled relatives of immigrants from countries in Asia and Europe. I should like to add a plea for a different class of relatives of immigrants in Canada. I refer

to the countless numbers of Chinese families who also are refugees from communism. They left the communist occupied areas of China and went into Hong Kong, which is a safe place for them to go, in the hope that their relatives in Canada eventually would be able to bring them out. I should like to plead for some relaxation by the minister's department in the regulations. Family records, marriage records and so on in communist China were completely destroyed. Homes were broken up. Some of these families have been in Hong Kong for a number of years waiting to be brought out by relatives in Canada.
The people who have come to Canada from China are thrifty, hard-working and industrious folk. They make good citizens. They have taken out their Canadian naturalization and all during their time in Canada they have been good citizens. I feel that we are being extremely harsh in denying admission to Canada to the families of these people who are now Canadian citizens. They are not any longer immigrants but have become Canadians in the best sense of the word. I should like to ask that the minister consider relaxation of her immigration regulations with reference to people who are now in Hong Kong and who are relatives of people who are in Canada and are Canadian citizens, so that these families can be reunited and so that the children, particularly the young ones, can have an opportunity to grow up in freedom in this country.
(Translation):


Mr. Denis:: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) should have dared to open his mouth to hold forth on the record of the Liberal party with regard to immigration. I think he is rather young in politics and that he is not aware of the statements previously made by all the ministers belonging to his own party.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a point or order, Mr. Chairman. I never said in this house that I was opposed to immigration, but that I favoured an immigration based on this country's capacity of absorption.


Guy Rouleau: You said it should be restricted.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I said it was an asset for the Canadian nation, just an asset.


Azellus Denis: I shall change the form of my statement and say that under the former administration, the Liberals were bent on controlling immigration according to the needs of Canada which is the opposite of what
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration is happening today and of what Conservative members at the time were doing when they introduced non-confidence motions because our immigration was not large enough to please their party, to which this young member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm also belongs.
I like to hear him talk, he has a good voice, I admire his genial manner, but I wish that, each time he opens his mouth-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Azellus Denis: When I am finished with my
remarks, you can ask me all the questions you want.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: With pleasure.


Azellus Denis: I just want to mention that
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) stated in 1958 that immigration scarcely affected unemployment. If what the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm says is true, how is it that before we went out of office, 164,257 immigrants were admitted in 1956, and that, as soon as the Conservative party came into power, while the unemployment figure grew from day to day, we admitted in 1957, 282,164 unemployed immigrants?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: At what time, in 1957, did
the government take office?


Azellus Denis: The Conservative government
was elected in June and had six months to stop immigration. Yet, neither the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm nor his friends did anything to stop immigration. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) had in any case asked that immigration be stepped up. And I must say that statement is a recent one. Besides, as the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau) said very aptly: when immigrants were coming in from overseas we were prosperous. It is not so today.
I honestly believe that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is blind if he cannot see that unemployment figures have tripled since his party has been in power.
If, instead of making speeches intended to please his electors or to prepare his next election, so that it may be said that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is always up on his feet in the house to make speeches-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I do not remain seated as you have been doing for 25 years.


Azellus Denis: I can well understand that his speech might help his re-election. However, before opening his mouth, he should check his figures for accuracy, and not in the hit or
1644	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration miss way he has been doing for the last several weeks. I think it would do him more good. When he addresses the house in this fashion, he hurts his party much more than he does ours.
To come back to more serious matters, I find it strange that, in view of the decline of immigration in the last few years, we should be asked to vote an additional $70,000 for administration when immigration has dropped to less than half the previous figure. I do not know whether the credit varies inversely with the amount of work to be done, but I should like the hon. minister to explain how departmental administration costs increased by $70,000, in view of the fact that in 1958, there were only 124,825 immigrants as compared to 282,000 the previous year. I realize that the hon. minister must have a very good explanation to give, and I would ask her to give it so as to satisfy the curiosity of her humble servant.
(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: Is the hon. member discussing item 48? We are on item 52; we have not yet come to item 48.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are all wet, as usual.


Azellus Denis: In any event, the hon. minister will surely be able to reply to that question in due course.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member allowed me to address a question to him after his speech. Could he give me an explanation of the hunger strike that occurred at St. Paul l'Ermite under the Liberal administration?


An hon. Member:: The hunger strike was put on by the immigrants themselves.


Azellus Denis: I was not the minister, and it was not my responsibility to settle the strike. However, there is a strike going on right now in Montreal and it is under the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan). And it is not a matter of two or three persons being unemployed, but of thousands of people who are starving because of the present government's failure to act. There is more urgency in settling the present strike than in harking back to small local strikes in the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
(Text):


Mr. Small:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the house is enjoying the calm and complacency of the debate going on in regard to immigration at the present time. It gives a little diversion and is amusing. But probably we should go back to the broad aspect of this immigration policy to which everyone seems


to want to subscribe. I would like to say that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revel-stoke started off on the right keynote by appealing for an improvement in existing conditions. In the same way, so did the hon. member for Halifax, the hon. member for High Park and the hon. member for Cartier. They all contributed to the debate in the light in which they believe the position to be. The hon. member for Kootenay West presented the case as he saw it, and I think he was perfectly justified in mentioning certain conditions. But I suggested that the policy of the department which has been carried out by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will meet with the approval of the house generally, and the policy she is pursuing is in thorough keeping with what has been asked of her.
I think it was suggested, if I remember rightly, that a movement was afoot by labour organizations in this country to restrict immigration. Repeatedly they have asked that there be a stop to, or a restriction placed on immigration in such times as are confronting us generally, and without getting into the controversy about who is right or wrong, I must say that that policy has been continued from the previous government. They found, notwithstanding the fact that our labour force in the country is more than it ever had been before, that when they encouraged immigration in such large numbers during the year the hon. member for St. Denis had reference to we were able to absorb them into our labour force. Nevertheless, we have inflation and unemployment, and we are trying to solve those problems. Everyone is convinced that this country cannot go on the way it is with our present population. The problem we are confronted with is that our cost of living is very high. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world, and therefore to a certain extent we have priced ourselves out of world markets. The only thing we can do is to make sure we have markets of our own by having a large population in Canada, whom we are able to look after and provide with employment.
On that broad basis I think the immigration policy of the department should be: We will take in as many as we possibly can. It is said that there was criticism offered of this department when we were in opposition. That is true; but if you examine the record you will find our plea was for more immigration, but on a broader basis. Some of us thought that there was not an equalized admission to this country of the different ethnic groups of the world. Personally, some of the observations which have been made could stand a little more discussion.

I am perfectly satisfied that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, the former minister of citizenship and immigration, did the best job he could while he held that portfolio. Of course, the hon. member has many shortcomings and qualities we do not like but we must give him his just due and I know that the milk of human kindness flows in his veins. My experience with him has generally been satisfactory. He was always willing to listen to the views of hon. members of the opposition and he gave them sympathetic consideration when he could. I have found him to be fair and we have gotten along together fairly well. I am sure that wherever possible his suggestions will similarly receive sympathetic consideration on the part of the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The hon. member spoke of the problems concerning the admittance of people from Hong Kong. We all know the difficulties involved in that question. I am convinced that the department will work out a solution that is to the best advantage of Canada without restricting unduly the right of these people to come to Canada. What the hon. gentleman said about the Chinese people who seek admittance is quite true. They are a most likeable people and are extremely law-abiding. They try to fit in well in this country. It may well be that they like to indulge in a harmless little game of fan-tan among themselves but I do not suppose that we in Canada can claim to set a perfect example because we too occasionally like to indulge in a game of chance and we should not be too critical of them. Nevertheless the matter of the admittance to Canada of people from this country is one requiring great discretion on the part of the department and I am sure the policies of the department at this time represent a logical continuation or sequence to what was done in this respect during the period when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate held his portfolio.
I cannot resist commenting on the exchange of ideas that took place between the hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate with respect to the Sopron faculty and the fact that students in British Columbia and many other parts of Canada are unable to continue their university courses because of their being unable to obtain employment. On the face of it it appears as if there should be an adjustment there but it is always interesting to hear all sides of a story and I took pleasure in listening to the remarks of those two hon. gentlemen and the hon. member for High Park. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred to the fact that last year the government introduced measures valued 66968-9-105
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration at $40 million to assist the farmers of western Canada and said that the hon. member for Assiniboia in talking to him privately at that time, expressed the hope that no one would suggest that the same should be done for the fishermen. This brought a thought to my mind and I checked back in the record to verify it. I remember that last year when the house had under consideration assistance to the maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in terms of thermonuclear development the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said the government should do something similar for Newfoundland. It occurs to me that there is a strong similarity between these two situations and that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate drew an unfair comparison when he contrasted the attitude of the hon. member for Kootenay West today with the attitude held at that time by the hon. member for Assiniboia. When one places an argument before this committee one often fails to present the full picture and one may unwittingly tend to draw unfair comparisons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member does not want to be unfair and I do not want to be controversial but may I state that in both those cases I did not oppose what the government was doing. I supported what the government was doing in both cases. The difference between me and the hon. member for Kootenay West is that he was opposing something I thought was good.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: You held them up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not hold them up. Nothing has been done about them yet.


Robert Hardy Small: I will accept the explanation of the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, but I must comment that in the heat of debate one sometimes tends to make comparisons for one's own benefit. The attitude the member for Bonavista-Twillingate took is somewhat like that of small boys who say, "If you do not do for me what you are prepared to do for somebody else, I will pick up my marbles and go home." While the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and others from the province of Newfoundland did not oppose what the government proposed with respect to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia they were most vocal in stating that the government should also have included Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will support that, too.


Robert Hardy Small: I believe the same remarks could apply to the situation to which I made reference concerning the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West. What was said by the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration hon. member for Kootenay West illustrates a problem with respect to immigration today. It has frequently been said that the triangular shaped area in Canada embracing Windsor to Quebec and north to North Bay contains approximately two-thirds of the population of this country. As immigrants continue to enter Canada either under a policy of sponsored or unsponsored immigration it will be the duty of the department to encourage those people to disperse across the nation rather than crowding into our more heavily populated area. There must be long range plans and consideration must be given to the distribution or dispersal of immigrants across the nation so that our relatively uninhabited areas may develop and industrial expansion take place in areas where it is needed and our natural resources may be constructively exploited to meet the needs of a growing economy and an increasing population. If this is done under a mature policy Canada will not have to rely too much on exports and eventually will become more self-sustaining. The north will be opened up, the population and industrialization of the western provinces will increase and consumption of our surplus commodities at home will be assured. We should avoid having our presently developed areas attempt to assimilate additional population through immigration.
I have raised this question because we have been welcoming many immigrants to this country. On the advice of labour leaders the government has restricted quotas of immigrants for the time being but we want as much immigration as we can intelligently handle and it may well be that an expanded program of immigration will take place in the future. We require immigration so our natural resources will be developed faster and many of the problems that now beset us because of under-population, including the problems of the railways, will be more rapidly resolved. On the other hand we are eager to preserve our freedom and our high standard of living and we must take no action through an open door policy of immigration that would jeopardize our liberties through allowing into the country people whose ideological concepts and ways of life are in direct conflict with the traditions and freedoms we cherish, enjoy and seek to preserve.
In the future when the shadow that hangs over our heads has passed away I am sure the government will adopt policies of immigration under which will accrue the greatest benefits to Canada.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, I
should like at this time to speak for a few moments on sponsored immigration. I firmly believe that in order to maintain our economy


and keep abreast of the pace of expansion it is necessary to have a steady flow of good immigrants to Canada. However, I am well aware that if we open the gates wide at the present time many people may come to Canada and find themselves facing difficulties in terms of securing employment and becoming established.
I have mentioned immigrants coming to this country being sponsored by their friends and relations here in Canada. When I speak on their behalf I speak for a large group of Canadians, especially new Canadians, who are trying desperately at the present time to bring to Canada from different parts of Europe their friends and relations who are living under troubled conditions. I know that at the present time practically all the immigrants who are coming here are coming under sponsorship. I should like to make some suggestions to the minister and I make them in a friendly way. Sometimes I have disagreed with decisions which the minister has made, and she might feel that I am a little hard. However, that part of Canada known as the Niagara peninsula, which I represent, is a fine place in which to live and there are a great many people from different parts of Europe who wish to come to live there. There are some countries in Europe from which it is easier to get to Canada than from others. They are allowed to bring mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, brothers and sisters. From some countries they are allowed to bring nieces and nephews and from others they are allowed to bring fiancees and also brides and husbands, but for some other countries the restrictions are very tough. I think the regulation should be the same for all countries. May I give an instance?
I have a letter here which I received from the department in connection with a family that is trying to get here from Poland. We were making very good progress. They had been approved as far as the local offices here were concerned and we were expecting to get word any day that they were on their way. However, I am informed today that the family here has been advised that the group they were sponsoring from Poland, which consisted of a father, mother and two daughters, were in this position. It had been discovered that one of the daughters is 20 years of age and therefore she is barred from coming to Canada. I think this is very unfortunate; it is a situation which should be corrected because how can a family come from Poland and leave a daughter 20 years of age who is really a juvenile in law?
I should like to make this point at this time. Our regulations require some changes

so that a family of that kind would all be allowed to come here rather than debar one because she is 20 years of age? I could recite a good many cases that have come to my attention, cases that I have worked on but they are all more or less the same. In so far as some countries are concerned, as soon as a child or any person gets over a certain age he cannot come here. I could refer to another case which is similar. A girl is 21, and of course she is completely debarred from coming here to a good home and an opportunity for a real education and a chance to make good in this country.
There is also the question of fiancees. I think this is a matter to which we should give some consideration. I might say that I was involved in a case not so long ago where I found it was permissible for sisters to come to this country but not fiancees. This particular person arrived here as a sister but she was actually affianced. I thought that when she was here that would be the end of it, that we could write it off; but unfortunately we ran into a problem with the monsignor of the catholic church who said, "It is fine, the girl gets in here but you know we cannot marry brothers and sisters so you will have to do something about it." I should just like to say to the minister that everything turned out all right. The girl got married and they disappeared, and I burned my file with as much glee as a Presbyterian minister when he burns the mortgage on the church when the debt is paid.
I am not going to make a long speech on this, Mr. Chairman, but I should like to make a special appeal for sponsored immigrants. I suggest that the regulations be broadened in such a way that not only close relations but those who are probably just on the fringe could come here. After all, when most people come here they come under sponsorship and the party who is bringing them out undertakes to see that they become established in this country and to look after them until such time as they are able to become settled and make way for themselves. I do not see why we should not open up that type of immigration and bring more people of that kind to this country.
I might also make some remarks about Chinese people who are British subjects from Hong Kong. I know this is a matter which is controversial but nevertheless it has been my pleasure to know people of this kind who have landed in this country for one reason or another and then find that they have to be deported. It is very unfortunate that they should be deported, especially at the present time when the 66968-9-1054
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration regulations permit them to make their application in Canada rather than go back home again and try from there.
There is also the question of the Chinese people who came to Canada in years gone by, made good and have quite a stake in the country. They wish to bring their children to this country. There again they are up against the problem that if the children are over 21 years of age they cannot come here. Hong Kong is at least a part of the British commonwealth of nations. We should give some consideration to special cases of that kind. I do not say that we should open up the gates and allow a great many Chinese people to come here; I am against that but in certain cases we should perhaps do better than we are doing at the present time.
This is about all I have to say at the present time, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I discovered last year that if one wanted to get a full answer to questions from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration one had to pose his questions early and the minister would pick them up. I would like her to report later on what the situation is at the present time in the two countries of Italy and Poland in so far as people coming out here are concerned. I know that the difficulty in Poland is largely one of making arrangements with the present Polish government to expedite the movement of people who are eligible to come here to join relatives but who have blocks thrown in their way by the government of Poland. I should like to have a report on how that is coming along and whether there is any noticeable improvement.
I gather that the problem in Italy, and it has been brought up several times, is the fact of only having one centre, that at Rome, and because so many people are eligible to come here the facilities in Rome are not able to process them with any speed. I should like to know from the minister what the backlog is now, whether it has been reduced recently and whether there is any intention to increase the staff in Italy in order to move more of these people out here who have been proven eligible to come.
There is one other point in connection with immigration from Italy which I should like to bring to the minister's attention, and I have done so before in another form. I refer to the kind of assessment that is made of prospective emigrants to Canada in so far as their political background is concerned. I have talked recently to two Canadian businessmen of Italian origin who have been over there. They say that in some parts of Italy, especially in the south, there is a tendency

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration for anyone who has opened his mouth at all at any time in the last 15 or 20 years to be labelled as a communist. These men both told me that they felt the department should take a very close look at any adverse reports that may come out of southern Italy with respect to the political complexion of people because so often people who really have no link or tie with the communist party are labelled in that manner.
Furthermore, many people who have taken part in political activity within the ranks of the social democrats are labelled as communists by the parish priest and other officials who make reports to the Canadian immigration department. I agree with the hon. member for Danforth who made the point that we need close screening in order to keep out people with radical or left wing persuasions of the communist kind, but from at least two cases I have encountered in my constituency I certainly have the feeling that people are being prevented from coming here because of political activities or sympathies that have been assumed to be communist when in fact they are really not that at all.
There is one other matter I have taken up with the minister and about which we have had certain discussions. I refer to the minister and her officials being placed almost in the role of Dorothy Dixes or intermediaries in lovelorn affairs.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I thought you were the specialist in that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I think everyone tends to think that they are. The minister knows the cases of which I speak. It does seem to me that it is time the department tried to work out some crisper form of regulation with respect to people coming to Canada to get married because the minister will be aware of a couple of cases where true love seems to have faded as soon as the arrival of the affianced in the particular community took place. I understand there has been a tendency for this kind of thing to become a racket in some ways. There is really no love or romance at all in some of these arrangements. I know that in Europe it is often argued that this kind of arrangement makes for a much more solid base for marriage, but on the other hand we have these people coming out here to Canada supposedly intending to go through a marriage ceremony and very often the marriages do not take place. I think it would be very interesting if the minister could give us some statistical information on what happens in these cases. I do not want to give publicly the details of two cases that I am aware of because we are still in hopes that something may be done about them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Are you Cupid?


Douglas Mason Fisher: But it is very awkward when someone in Canada spends money and goes to a great deal of effort to bring out a potential husband or wife and then discovers when they get here that true love really was not the impetus at all. It was simply a chance to partake generally of the Canadian scene. I hope the department will look into this matter.
There is one final point I wish to make with regard to immigration. It has to do with the particular ethnic group that happens to be the largest in our region, people who have come from Finland. One point that has been brought to my attention by people in the Finnish community with respect to immigration from Finland is that its character has changed to quite an extent. Anyone who drives round the lakehead region will realize that a great deal of the backbone of the whole community, so far as farming and bush work are concerned, is provided by people of Finnish stock. That is as it should be when one recognizes that Finland is an area about the same size as my constituency with roughly the same climate, the same amount of arable soil but with a population of approximately seven million whereas the constituency has a population of 90,000.
The Finns are experts at logging and a combination of bush farming and logging in their own country which makes them ideal immigrants for our part of the country and for the whole boreal forest band. But what has been noticeable about recent Finnish immigration is that so many of the people are from the cities. Because these people are such a premium to our area I wonder if a really strong effort could not be made when immigration does broaden to go after the people in the Finnish country districts in order to get more of them out here. We know that the majority of them will tend to come to our part of the country because the Finnish community has a solidarity based upon its own cultural institutions and its own newspaper that makes Port Arthur a magnet much more than any other community in North America for people from Finland.
The whole lakehead area is aware of how much this kind of immigration has meant to the region. We believe that we have land for agricultural development which would really benefit from this type of immigrant. From conversations I have had with a number of people in the Finnish Lutheran Church I know that they would welcome the opportunity to co-operate by making contacts in the rural districts of Finland in

order to get more of the kind of people over here who can step right into our woods areas and who will have the background and the experience that no other type of immigrant from Europe really has, with the possible exception of some from Norway.
In the boreal forest area we have a very peculiar kind of farming and logging problem that is only paralleled in Finland and Russia. We do not expect to get any immigrants from Russia and we have had these people of a very high standard from Finland who have meant so much to our country. I would ask the minister to take under active consideration the matter of going into the rural districts of Finland so that we can get more of that type of person over here. As a corollary to these remarks may I say I do not want to give the impression that I think the people from the cities of Finland are not worth-v/hile immigrants, but in terms of usefulness and being a real boon to the area they have no advantages over people from any other part of the world while the people from the rural areas of Finland certainly have.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I hope the minister will be some time in this particular portfolio. I, for one, have found her very agreeable in so far as immigration and citizenship problems are concerned. I hope she manages, in the next few years, to make a real mark of the best kind in this particular role she has before she is called away to what I imagine will be the higher responsibilities that her general abilities, I am sure, will warrant.


Leon David Crestohl: I should like to make one or two additional observations, if I may. I am sure the discussions this afternoon on these estimates, in the presence of the minister and her senior officials, are very helpful in enabling them to observe how the whole house, with very few exceptions, has seized upon what I should like to call the new obiter dictum from the Prime Minister with respect to immigration. The house has seized upon his words to the effect that Canada must have new population from immigration if it wants to hold and develop its resources. Practically the whole house has seized also on the Prime Minister's warning to Canada that we must either populate or perish.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope too that the house and the departmental officials, as well as the minister, may accept two other warnings that the Prime Minister gave. I am now quoting from the Montreal Gazette of April 27, 1957, which states:
The Conservatives, he continued, will end the arbitrary and unjust interpretation of immigration regulations-
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
He also said with equal strength in a statement appearing in the Globe and Mail on April 27, 1957, and I quote from that article:
He-
That is the Prime Minister.
-pledged a more vigorous immigration policy would step up the flow of skilled immigrants, end the "bureaucratic" interpretation of the immigration act, and ensure that humanitarianism would be considered more often in handling immigration applications.
I quote these two admonitions or what I might call promises from the Prime Minister because they go hand in hand with this plea for increased immigration. That is why I emphasize them at the present time, so the minister and her officials will also be aware -I am sure they are already aware-of the Prime Minister's desire that these immigration regulations be not interpreted so restrictively, so harshly and right to the letter of the law, but that a more generous interpretation of these regulations be made. In that way, I am sure that the house will give effect to the Prime Minister's desire that we have an immigration policy that is expansive rather than restrictive, as he advocated in his speech on April 27, 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I just want to make a couple of brief observations before the hon. lady speaks, as I hope she is going to do. I should like to echo what was said by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke at the beginning of the debate. I have in my hand a copy of an article by Mr. Stanley Burke, who is a correspondent I think for all Southam papers but this appeared in the Citizen of February 13. I am not going to inflict it on the hon. lady or on the committee because I daresay the hon. lady has at least read it. The article is along the lines of what was said by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke.
I think we should make an effort as Canadians to take some part in this refugee year, and try to do a reasonable and proportionate share to draw to a conclusion this refugee problem once and for all in the hope we are not going to face the kind of world in which new refugee problems will be created, though that might well be. There is one real difficulty about this which the minister knows as well as I do, and that is once one year has passed, according to present practice and present policy-at least, it certainly was the policy when we were in office-any responsibility for relief or assistance or anything of that sort ceases to be a federal responsibility and becomes a provincial responsibility. In view of that situation we took the view, when we were in office, and so far as I know the hon. lady still does, that we should not bring

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration people into a province who were suffering from some kind of disability, temporary or permanent, unless the provincial authorities agreed and unless reasonable provision was made for treatment.
I do not believe, having regard to our federal constitution, that it is very reasonable for a government to take any other attitude than that. It is not right for us to deliberately create problems for the provincial governments. I know that I did have some difficulties, particularly in the case of the hon. lady's own province, and I hope that may be changed. I noticed, perhaps it is the shadow of events to come, that in that province they have now set up a citizenship branch in their own government. I must say I am from Missouri about this and I will have to be shown that there is a more humane attitude than there was when I was in office. Perhaps the hon. lady has more influence with Queen's Park than I had. There is where at least half of these cases arise, and I think if we are to do anything effective about relatives, particularly elderly relatives-there are a great many of them-of residents of Canada who want to come here, not to go into the labour market but merely to live in their old age with their families and who, because they had a spot on their lung or something of that sort, are denied admission, it might be useful if the hon. lady could get an agreement with the provinces. I do not think we necessarily have to have agreements with all of them because in some provinces there are practically no cases. Perhaps some sort of policy could be worked out in this refugee year. I do not think we should take all of them, but we could do a reasonable share in this field.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee will agree with me that the discussion we have had this afternoon has been most interesting. If anyone needed proof of the diverse problems which confront this department, I am sure that has been furnished in the remarks of the members today. I shall attempt to answer a few of the questions that have been put to me. I hope that if there are any specific questions to which hon. members would like answers, and which I inadvertently overlook, they will tell me.
There are two or three things I should like to say, and one of them is in reply to the hon. member for Cartier and his last plea for a humanitarian approach to this problem. It has been my aim ever since taking the responsibility for this department to administer the affairs of the department in a humanitarian way. Of course, there are cases where the decision is not only difficult but possibly unfortunate. I can well understand that hon. members who present cases that

they feel are very strong cases must be disappointed if the decision which is made is an adverse one. However, that is one of the responsibilities of this office and one which I cannot shirk.
A number of pleas have been made for co-operation in this international refugee year. This is, of course, a problem which will have to be solved by this department in conjunction with other departments of government, notably the Department of External Affairs. This is a problem which we are looking into at the present time. However, I should like to point out to members of the committee that while this hard-core problem is there and has been there for some time, it presents a peculiar problem, as has been mentioned by several hon. members, and just a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.
This matter of bringing people into this country to go immediately into hospitals must be cleared, I think, with the provincial authorities. I am sure that all members interested know that in various sections of the country local committees are being set up to explore the possibility of co-operation in this matter. Before long I think we shall probably have the type of co-operation we need. Just how far we can go along that road remains to be seen. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the matter of our reception of refugees over the years. If my memory serves me correctly, I think that since the war years something like 180,000 refugees have been taken into this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: More than that, I think.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: My official tells me that officially the figure is 180,000. Then, of course, there were many who were not classed as refugees who came in in the regular way. Of those we have no count.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That figure of 180,000 does not include Hungarians, does it?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So the figure is really about
220,000?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. We had some 38,000 Hungarians. With respect to the matter of health, I might say also that of those 38,000 Hungarians who came in it is estimated by the Department of National Health and Welfare that some 900 went into hospitals. We have therefore made a considerable contribution to the solution of the refugee problem. In addition to that, I might say that cash contributions I think including this year will total over $1 million. That is another contribution that has been made by Canadians to the solution of this problem. We should like

to co-operate in this international refugee year. It comes, of course, right on the heels of the assistance which we gave to the Hungarians, a matter which was discussed in this chamber this afternoon. As I said, we shall have to wait and see what develops out of the various offers of co-operation which will be forthcoming from Canadians generally. I should like to make just one comment with regard to the oft-repeated criticism of the size of immigration last year or of the number of immigrants who came into this country last year as compared with 1958.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. lady not mean 1957?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I mean 1957. I am sure that hon. members of this committee, when they seriously look at these figures, will realize that this is no fair comparison at all. The year 1957 was the most unusual year in the history of Canada since about 1913. As a matter of fact, the average for the last ten years, if you exclude 1957, was 153,000. Even in taking that average, you include the other bumper year of 1951 when the refugee camps in Europe were cleaned out. I therefore do not think it is reasonable to take the figure of
282.000	as a normal figure. As a matter of fact, if you take out the bumper year of 1951 and that of 1957 you have an average of some
132.000	over the last ten years, a figure which is not too far removed from the nearly 125,000 which came in last year.
In reply to the hon. member for Fort William who quoted Mr. Rhys Sale with regard to the five per cent increase, I should like to say that if he will consult the Canada Year Book he will find out that it is just about the increase that we have had in population over the past few years. It averages out to just about that figure, namely 500,000 per year, including both natural increase and immigration.
There are a couple of specific questions, Mr. Chairman-


Hubert Badanai: Will the minister permit me to ask a question?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Hubert Badanai: It concerns sponsored applicants. What is the attitude of the government now with regard to young fellows who are single and who have been assured employment on their arrival here? I know of cases where their applications have been turned down.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I do not understand what the hon. member is talking about.


Hubert Badanai: I am referring to applications from young immigrants of say 20 years of
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration age or 30 years of age who are single, who wish to come out here from Italy, who have made applications; and whose applications were supported by sponsors here in Canada guaranteeing employment.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course the situation in Italy is probably different from that in any other country because of the terrific backlog there. I will answer the hon. member's question in the course of my remarks on this subject because it all ties in with remarks made in this chamber by various members.
It is true that during this last year immigration from the United Kingdom fell from the first place. I do not think that was so much a matter of design as of accident. It is notable that the people from the United Kingdom, once they are in this country, do not resort to the sponsoring of relatives in the same way as do immigrants from other countries. Italy is the one country which in great volume sponsors relatives. It seems that immigrants from Italy, immediately they come to this land and are here for the required length of time, want to bring out their brothers, sisters and other relatives. That has been mainly the reason for the huge backlog which has built up in Italy. I may say that it is a backlog which causes us a great deal of concern. If a person applies to come to this country and, as my hon. friend says, is an able bodied young man and should find a future here, it is most unfortunate that he should be obliged to wait a great length of time before being considered because there are so many ahead of him.
Someone asked me this afternoon-and without reference to my notes I cannot recall who it was-what the backlog actually was now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I am correct in saying that the total backlog in Italy now is some 63,000. Last year it was about 60,000. Two years prior to that it was about 47,000. Despite that fact, the number of Italians who are coming into the country is growing each year. So, Mr. Chairman, you can visualize the problem which presents itself to this department. We are trying extremely hard to solve that problem as well as many others which have presented themselves to us. If that figure is wrong, I will get the correct one in just a moment. In round figures, that figure of 63,000 is correct.
I should like to answer a few of the questions that were put to me by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate when he spoke

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the other day. With regard to the establishment of judicial or quasi-judicial boards to look into the procedure for persons who are refused visas in sponsored cases and in other cases also, this is a matter that is still under view, I am sorry to say. The hon. member knows as well as I do what a difficult problem it is to solve. We do not want to make any mistakes and it is still being considered. I have not got the solution yet but I do hope to have it.
There was some question about immigration from Poland. I think the house should be informed that from 1953 to 1958 yearly the numbers coming in from Poland ranged from 2,400 to 3,300. They have gone up and down. In 1958 the number was 3,171; the year before that, 3,096. We do our best, and are doing our best, to reunite families. The hon. member for Cartier asked me if there had been any loosening up of the attitude of the Polish authorities. There has been to some slight extent. The situation is not what we might hope, but nevertheless some of these people are coming in all the time. Here again, many of those who come in are refugees; people who have probably got out of Poland and are in one of the surrounding countries. The figures I have given are people of Polish origin who have come out in these last few years.
As regards immigration from Poland itself, while it started off five years ago at 45, last year it reached the total of 2,292, which will give hon. members some conception of the manner in which the restriction imposed by the Polish authorities have been eased. As a matter of fact, that figure compares with the figure of 690 in 1957. In other words, three times as many came out in 1958 than in 1957. I thought that might be a reassuring piece of information for the hon. member. It is a problem which we are considering all the time.
I would also like to say a word with reference to immigration from the West Indies. Here again we have a problem which has changed somewhat in complexion by reason of the recent emergence of the West Indies as an independent nation within the commonwealth. I feel that rather than deal with local governments in the various islands we must deal with the federal government. Here again, numbers are increasing every year, and from the number of 849 who came in in 1954 we have increased to 1,192 last year.
I would like to say just one word with reference to what has been called a colour bar. This is a phrase or description which is thrown around, it seems to me, rather loosely by many people, some of whom are very well-informed people. But for the

consideration of this committee I would like to put to them this problem. True, the West Indies are members, like many other countries, of the commonwealth of nations, but what mainly keeps out these people is the fact that they have not the skill or the financial resources to maintain themselves in this country for long enough to settle in. This is a serious problem as I am sure all hon. members will recognize. A person without resources and with no particular skills coming from the United Kingdom under those circumstances would scarcely be admitted to Canada. Now, you cannot say that there is a colour distinction there, because exactly the same situation prevails.
We have tried to overcome that, and I know that the former minister, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, had negotiations in this regard. We have tried to take a step in the right direction by including a class of person who could step into immediate employment in Canada. We are still reviewing the situation, and I hope that before too long it will be possible for us to have conferences with the authorities in the West Indies and that we will be able to come up with a solution to what has been a great problem. I might say that when these people are available to us and they have special skills they are not kept out. A great number have come in in the past few years, and a number of cases have crossed my desk where persons with skills and education who could be readily absorbed into Canadian life have been permitted to come into the country.
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether I have touched on all of the questions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did ask the hon. lady about the backlog in Hong Kong.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In December 1957 the
backlog was 1,195.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How would that compare with the earlier year?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The year 1957 I have just given you, 1,195. In December 1958 it was 286.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a very marked improvement.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, I think this is a great improvement and I am pleased with it. I should say with regard to this 286 that this group is now being considered, of course; but I think we have made great strides in clearing up what was rather a deplorable situation. I think the other questions which were asked, Mr. Chairman, I have answered in a general way. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that

we will have another opportunity to review the situation when we get to the departmental administration vote.
I should comment briefly on the problems of the hon. member for Port Arthur, who certainly has had his share of difficulties, and I think if anyone in this house deserves the appellation of Dorothy Dix he does. But I must agree with him that this matter of bringing in fiancees, in many cases persons who have never been seen by the applicant, presents another one of the very grave problems of the department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One question I would like to ask the hon. lady. She knows this is a question of honour and I am sure she is ready with the answer. When I was minister I was accused of the most heinous inhumanity because I said we would only review Chinese cases once after there had been a refusal. I did this for the very good reason that I felt we should not keep on shuffling over the old straw but should get on and deal with the new cases. Could the hon. lady tell me if she still follows that policy, or does she follow a different one?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, the other day the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate accused me of being far tougher in this department than he ever was, but I think I am now vindicated because I can tell him that some of these cases I have reviewed several times. However, I am glad he has given me that lead; maybe now I can also review them once and put the lid on them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that would be very wise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
Immigration branch-
S3.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $13,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $6,899,092.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. lady whether the increase represents anything more than simply higher salaries?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact there were decreases in several of the divisions.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was referring just to the field and inspectional service.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The increase in salaries is $84,360 and there have been some decreases to account for the difference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
54.	Field and Inspectional service, abroad, $2,261,296.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, has there been any change in any of the offices abroad since we last considered the estimates?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the hon. member mean in the number of offices or the location?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The location.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, no change.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
55.	Trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers, subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment; and payments to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $3,100,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two brief observations I would like to make with respect to this item. When we last considered the estimates which was about six months ago I asked the hon. lady if a settlement had yet been made with the government of Ontario about the expenses it had gone to with respect to Hungarians which they were seeking to recover from us. I have not checked the record and I may be wrong but my recollection is that at that time the hon. lady said a settlement had practically been reached but had not yet been concluded. I wonder, if a settlement has now been reached, what the basis of it was and what we have paid to Ontario?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: A settlement was reached on exactly the same basis as the settlement with Saskatchewan. I do not have the figures here but I could get them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not particularly interested so long as I have an assurance that no rent was paid for any real estate. That was one of the big points in dispute. The Ontario government had rented certain real estate on a rather large scale and having made this magnificent gesture that government was trying to get the federal taxpayer to pay for it. I was determined that they were not going to get away with it and I am glad the hon. lady has been equally strong in her resistance.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that there was norental paid.
1654	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am relieved indeed to hear that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, it was understood that when item No. 55 was completed we were going to go back to item No. 49.
Citizenship-
49. Citizenship registration branch, $477,571.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some rather extended observations on this item. Before I begin I should like to ask the hon. lady if it is agreeable to her if we have a general debate on both citizenship branches under this item or if she would like me to confine myself strictly to the citizenship registration branch? I might suggest I think it would be better if we did have a general debate on citizenship generally and if we agreed to have it on this first item then when we come to the item on the Canadian citizenship branch we could just ask questions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is quite agreeable to me, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On that basis, again, I
should like to deal with three separate but closely related topics. The first is the question of the citizenship act. I hasten to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I do not intend to debate the bill that is now on the order paper and I do not intend to enter into detailed arguments about that bill, but I do believe the day-long debate we had on that bill which may never come up again illustrated two things. The first was there are more defects in the act than I had thought when I introduced that bill. I must confess I was convinced by some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Marquette that there were more inequities in the act than the hon. lady told us there were last summer when the other bill was before us.
I am unrepentant in my view that we should do, in fact, in this parliament what the present Minister of Justice said we should do as reported in the Winnipeg Tribune of October 9, 1957. I draw your attention to the fact that this statement was made by the hon. gentleman a few days before the opening of the first and only session of the parliament before this parliament. The Minister of Justice is reported by Mr. Alan Rogers as having made certain statements about what the objectives of the new government were in respect to citizenship. I feel that this should be put on the record so there will be no doubt about what was the original position taken by the present government in this matter. The article reads:
The new Conservative government will soon bring the rights of "naturalized" Canadians into line with those of "natural-born" citizens.


Chief aim of the government is to eliminate the feeling among new Canadians that "naturalized" citizenship is insecure-a feeling prompted by clauses of the Canadian Citizenship Act which appear to discriminate against the newcomer.
Omitting several paragraphs I proceed to a part of the article which more or less directly quotes the present Minister of Justice:
Acting citizenship and immigration minister Davie Fulton said Tuesday he was impressed with the argument that the present act discriminates against the naturalized citizen.
He said the government should not give up the right to deprive a naturalized Canadian of his citizenship if it were proved that citizenship was orginally granted on the basis of false declarations by the applicant.
There has never been any quarrel about that on either side of the house. I believe the the method I suggested for doing this is rather more satisfactory than the method followed under the present law; that is to say, we should make it clear that a person who gets a citizenship certificate by fraud in fact never was a citizen at all; but that is a detailed point. This is a sentence I particularly wished to draw to the attention of the hon. lady and members of the committee. These are the words of the acting minister of citizenship and immigration of that day:
But in other respects, "There should be no difference between the rights of naturalized and natural-born citizens."
That was a statement of government policy made by the hon. gentleman a few days before parliament opened. I continue:
Mr. Fulton said he was studying the Citizenship Act, but it isn't expected that any changes will be made at the imminent fall session of parliament.
Amendments to the act likely will come when the commons meets again early in the new year.
In the time between that statement and the date the bill was introduced by the hon. lady last summer the government had a change of mind and it did leave certain discriminations in the act. As I say, I am not going to take the time of the committee now by discussing the details of those things but I am going to make a suggestion to the hon. lady and through her to the government. I suggest that the government look over the citizenship act in the light of the debate the other day, in the light of certain comments that have been made to me and also in the light of the interesting contribution made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who pointed out that there were certain disabilities under which natural-born citizens of Canada not born in Canada also suffered. That is a concept that is not easy for the average person to understand, but there are such people.

I do think it would be a very good thing, and a good thing for another reason. It has come to my notice even since I ceased to be minister, and it came to my notice a good many times before, that every so often cases do arise, some of them very embarrassing. Without citing any names, I am going to cite one or two that have recently come to my notice. One that came to my notice the hon. lady knows about and I am not blaming her because there is nothing she can do about it any more than anyone else can, except parliament itself. But a child was brought to Canada in infancy, in fact before he was a year old, from Indiana and lived here, in fact was adopted by Canadians. He lived in Montreal all his life to the age of 23 or 24, when he found to his great embarrassment that he had never been landed as an immigrant. Therefore, he could not become a citizen for another five years. This is just an absurdity, of course, but it is the law and there is nothing whatever that the minister, the governor in council, or anybody else except parliament can do about a case like that.
It came to my attention the other day that a ship's deserter-I am sorry the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice who have such tender hearts for ships' deserters, or at any rate did have for one ship's deserter a year or two ago are not in the house at the moment-deserted his ship some 20 or 25 years ago. He has never been landed but has lived as a perfectly good resident of his community. He married a Canadian and has grown-up children in Canada. He now finds that even if he is landed, I am not sure whether he is yet, he may be faced with deportation. I have not gone into the details of the case, because again I knew that it would take five years after landing before that person could get citizenship. I must confess-perhaps I should not say this-that at the time I brought the amendment into the house when I was minister-I think in 1956-I did place a cut-off date in the bill I brought in and which was accepted by the house. It was provided that any person who had landed or been technically landed before that date but had been resident in Canada for a longer time before that could count the prior period, so that it was possible for someone who had already been here for five years to be landed and make his application for citizenship, and do the one right after the other.
I did suggest at that time that under certain safeguards and in certain circumstances we should put a provision in the act that would not be just retroactive but would
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration provide for the future that in certain of these hard cases there might be some discretion given to the governor in council if the case were reported subsequently to parliament so that there was the utmost publicity. But just at that time I had the experience as minister of losing several cases in the courts, immigration cases, where the question of the discretion of the governor in council was involved, and I frankly confess that I did not propose that legislation at that time because I was afraid some of the hon. lady's friends would prolong the debate to such an extent that we would not get the bill through.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You have a suspicious nature.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am inclined to think that that might have happened because that was in the days when the hon. lady and her friends had had no experience of government, and they did not realize that orders in council based upon legislation are perfectly proper and necessary instruments for the use of any government. We have a different kind of parliament now, with a responsible opposition that understands something about these things, and it does seem to me that we should take another look-when all is said and done-10 years have passed since the hon. member for Essex East introduced the original Canadian Citizenship Act; in fact, it is more than 10 years. It came into effect on January 1, 1947, and it does seem to me that it would be a very useful thing indeed if the hon. lady at the next session of parliament- I know she has got the Indian Act under contemplation for this session and that is enough for one session, I quite agree-would consider having a proposal laid before this house and the other place for a joint committee, and a serious committee, to go into the citizenship act in a non-partisan way in the light of our 12 or 13 years experience, with a view to trying to remove some of those anomalies and also trying to clear up this question of real equality of status. I offer this as what I hope will be a constructive suggestion.
The second thing that I want to say something about is that I have the impression as a result of the very heavy immigration of the last four or five years that there are other places besides Toronto and Montreal where there is getting to be a real backlog of citizenship applications before the courts and where it is not really possible for the ordinary county or district courts, whatever they may be called in the various provinces, to handle those applications on a current basis. I would not be surprised if the hon. lady lives in one of the most outstanding
1658	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of those places because next to Toronto and Montreal I imagine there is the largest concentration of immigrants in Hamilton than in any other place in Canada. I would not be surprised if a similar situation existed in Vancouver, perhaps in Winnipeg, possibly in Edmonton and probably both in London and in Windsor. I am not making any suggestion in this field because I do not know all the facts but I think we would be interested to hear from the hon. lady what the facts really are and whether steps should not be taken to extend the number of citizenship courts.
I know the jurisdiction of the court in Toronto has been extended, if I remember rightly, to the whole of the province but that does not accomplish all that is needed. I wonder whether there should not be some further extension of those federal courts. I do not even know what the situation is in Ottawa. In any case, probably the hon. lady can tell us what the situation is.
The third thing I want to speak about is a particular case. It is not the only case of its kind. In fact, I know of two similar cases, but I refer to one that I communicated with the hon. lady on, I think, it was December 28 or 29, in the following terms:
Hon. Ellen Fairclough, M.P.,
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Ottawa.
I am deeply disturbed by press reports of proposed deportation to Haiti of Jean Orsete Volcy and his wife who have an infant daughter who is a Canadian citizen.
In order to leave the hon. lady with no qualms about whether I am dealing with something that is sub judice, I assure her at once I have no intention whatsoever of talking about Mr. Volcy and his wife. I am talking about their infant daughter who is a Canadian citizen and, therefore, against whom no valid deportation order could issue I continue with the telegram:
Deportation will involve for this citizen of our country either enforced separation from her parents or more probably exile from her native land. Surely this is a case where humanitarian considerations should have priority over departmental adherence to the letter of the law being stubbornly upheld.
I should just like to remind the hon. lady and the committee that that is not the kind of language I normally use, but that phrase is taken verbatim and literatim from the Prime Minister's reference to the Hanna case, made in this house when the Hanna case was sub judice. I deliberately used those words because I thought it would be useful later on to have that distinguished precedent from so eminent a lawyer. I added:
I am sending a copy of this message to the Prime Minister.


Then, on December 29 I received a telegram from the hon. lady which read:
Regard your telegram Mr. and Mrs. Volcy. Regret cannot comply with your request. I have already given exhaustive consideration to this deplorable situation and must concur in decision.
I thereupon wrote a letter to the Prime Minister about this case, which I also propose to read into the record. The letter is dated December 31 and reads:
My dear Prime Minister:
I have been astonished to receive a reply from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to my telegram regarding the infant daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Jean Volcy of Montreal flatly refusing to consider my representations. The minister in her reply completely ignores the fact that my representations were not made on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Volcy but on behalf of their daughter who is a natural born Canadian citizen. I recognize that the parents are not admissible as immigrants under present regulations but I am also aware that hundreds of persons have been admitted as immigrants this year-
That was the year 1958.
-by order in council. You will no doubt recall your own strong appeal to me just two years ago to recommend an order in council for the admission of one George Christian Hanna who had no connection whatever with this country and who has since been deported by your government.
Here we have a case of the parents of a Canadian citizen whose deportation would involve the enforced exile or the desertion of one of our own citizens. These people have lived in Canada for some time and the public has no evidence they have committed any crime or even failed to support themselves.
The minister in her telegram says she has given exhaustive consideration to this deplorable situation which she does not define. If that means these people are not desirable immigrants, surely action should have been taken before they became the parents of a Canadian citizen.
The press reports indicate that the decision of the courts in this case was based solely on technical inadmissibility under the existing regulations which could easily be cured by an order in council.
The refusal of the minister to recommend an order in council in this case is almost certain to create the impression that the action proposed is being taken because of the colour of the skin of the parents of this Canadian citizen.
Is not this proposed action, which is surely prejudicial to the natural rights of a citizen of Canada, a strange prelude to the proposed bill of rights? I am writing to you because the minister seems to have overlooked altogether the fact that her action will affect the rights and the welfare of a citizen of Canada. I am of course sending the minister a copy of my letter.
In due course I received an acknowledgement from the Prime Minister's office saying that the case was before the courts. I am relying here on my recollection and it is possible that my recollection will turn out to be wrong. I admit at once that many times during the period when I was minister deportation orders were issued against the parents of a Canadian citizen but because there was no appeal or anything of that sort they

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
never came to my attention. I am not going to say for a minute that there may not have been some parents of Canadian citizens deported while I was minister and that they may not have taken their children with them, but during that period I cannot recall any case ever brought to my attention where the deportation of the parents would involve either separation from an infant child or the taking of that child out of Canada into exile that I did not stay the operation of the deportation order at once.
It seems to me it is a shocking waste of the taxpayers' money to have this case in the courts at all, and I do think we should have an assurance from the minister that, in a case where the deportation of the parents of an infant Canadian citizen will result in forcible separation from the infant or in the exile of that Canadian citizen, deportation will not be carried out. No attempt should be made to carry it out, and unless there are the strongest possible reasons against it action should be taken by the governor in council under the act to land the parents of that Canadian citizen as immigrants.
Although it seems to me that the rights of a Canadian citizen are of the utmost importance, this is by no means merely a question of rights but a question of the practical application as well. The hon. lady, who is a lot younger than I am, perhaps will not remember that 25 years ago or 27 years ago or up to 30 years ago, when her political friends were in office in this country, a great number of residents of Canada were deported, particularly to the United Kingdom, from some parts of the prairie provinces because they had become public charges. I happen to recall some of these cases personally. I particularly remember a number from the city of Saskatoon. The action created a great deal of stir at that time. Years later, after the wider extension of assisted passages for immigrants from the United Kingdom, we found that we were receiving applications from people who could not qualify for assistance as immigrants because they were Canadian citizens who had been born in Canada, who had gone to the United Kingdom because their parents had been deported but who, as natural born Canadian citizens, could not be classed as immigrants and therefore could not get assistance to come to their own country. That situation was remedied by parliament without any difficulty whatsoever.
What is going to happen in practical effect if we deport-I should not say "deport" because we cannot deport them-if we exile these Canadian citizens is that they are going to grow up in another country while having all the rights of a Canadian citizen, and in
many cases they are going to want to exercise those rights years later. Even if we have no humanitarian reasons for doing so, surely we should recognize these facts as facts, and surely when we find this kind of situation, which does not arise very often, we should simply accept it as a fact and see that the rights of these Canadian citizens are protected even though it does involve permission to remain in Canada to people who otherwise we perhaps would not have chosen to be immigrants. Although I have one or two other observations I want to make, I believe I have taken my share of the time for the moment and I have made the three points I most particularly wanted to make.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will permit me to do so, I should like to make some comments at this point on what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate has said. With the first part of his remarks I find myself in almost complete agreement. He mentioned a couple of cases. I wish the hon. member would let me have the particulars of the first case he mentioned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very glad to but I am afraid nothing can be done about it. The department has done its best.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the circumstances are as the hon. member indicated and he has given a correct description, it is our opinion that possibly something can be done. I should like to have a look at it in any event.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very happy to.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to say to him also that with regard to the act itself or any amendments or revisions thereto I have an open mind. I hope at all times that I will encourage revision of any of the acts which govern the department under my jurisdiction. I would assure him most sincerely that I will look at his suggestion. Moreover, I can assure him that we have the same thoughts upon the same subject. He will be pleased to know that I think he must be some sort of a mind reader. We are already proceeding to open courts. The first one, I think, will be in the city of Hamilton.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That does not altogether surprise me.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We propose to open courts in places where the traffic will bear them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the minister any other places in mind?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Some of those my hon. friend mentioned fall into the category. We cannot open them all at once, of course. It is going to take time to get them in operation. However, it is my hope that eventually we

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration can have across this country a group of generally uniform ceremonies, bright, impressive ceremonies, that will impress these new Canadians with the idea that the acquisition of Canadian citizenship is really the highlight of their lives. I feel very strongly about that, and that is the end toward which I am working.
I come now to the not so pleasant part of my remarks. This has to do with the case which the hon. member has brought before this house, although it is before the courts at the present time. I agree with him that this child is a Canadian citizen, but when he says this case should never have been brought to the court I would draw to his attention that it was in the court when he was the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady would not want to create a false impression. There was no Canadian citizen at that time because this child has been born since I ceased to be the minister. My whole case is based on the Canadian baby.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am very pleased to learn the hon. gentleman now has a real concern for the children of immigrants. I have in my hand some cases in which deportation was ordered and in which there were Canadian children involved. I just went back a little way, and I have not too many. I only have about 15; two of them were under Mr. Harris; eight of them were under the hon. member and the rest of them were under my administration.
I have one right here. A citizen of Haiti entered Canada as a student and took employment. There was an application for a landing permit and he was ordered deported at Toronto on December 2, 1954, the wife included. The appeal was dismissed against voluntary deportation; there was deportation and the Canadian child accompanied the parents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady has me
there, I admit.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: My eye fell on that one because these people were Haitians also. Some of these others were from other countries such as Belgium, Italy, Scotland, England-they are pretty general, with a great many countries involved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady will recall, of course, that I thought there were a good many cases in which there had been no appeal.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: When the hon. member tries to single out this one case as a great and glaring example of injustice, I draw to his attention the fact that there have been a number of them and not by any means

the majority of them under my administration. I daresay if I go back and search the files I will find a great many more.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That still will not make it right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I just wanted a sample. I draw this to the hon. member's attention: although this case is before the court, and quite properly, we should not be discussing it at all in this house. I say to him that these people will receive fair treatment. The treatment that is accorded to them will be just and fair, and their child will always be a Canadian child.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to say a word about this matter because I think the hon. lady certainly has me in so far as this other Haitian case in which an appeal was taken is concerned. I think that what I did on that occasion was wrong, and I have no hesitation whatever in saying that, just as I think what the hon. lady is doing now is wrong. Whatever I may have done or Mr. Harris may have done or the hon. lady may have done in the past, I would not like to see us considering in this parliament in this session a bill of rights when at the same time we were still carrying on the practice which would indirectly exile Canadian citizens.
I say that whatever may have been done in the past, I appeal to the government and I appeal to the hon. lady not to proceed with this or with any other case where the child is of such an age that the deportation of the parents is going to mean either genuinely enforced separation or the exile of a Canadian citizen. Whatever the law may allow, I do not think this practice should continue. I feel very strongly about it. I feel just as strongly about it even though I may, in the past as the hon. lady has very properly pointed out, have been guilty of the same conduct. I suspected she might be able to point out some example, as anyone can see from my original remarks. I have never at any time in this house hesitated to say that I thought I had made mistakes. I know I did. But what I do say is that this matter has now been brought to the attention of the committee, and whatever may have been done in the past I do not think we should be using the powers in the Immigration Act to exile from Canada Canadian citizens.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I just say that the deportation order did not include the child.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I know that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have looked at this list while the hon. gentleman was speaking, and I find that in no less than five cases

appeals were registered and yet he ordered the deportation. One case in which he ordered deportation to Germany concerned a man, his wife and four children; two of them were born in Canada and the other two were born abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Rather than take the second Canadian child abroad with them they had it made an official ward of the Manitoba authorities and placed it for adoption.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it was wrong, anyway.


Frank Howard: There are a number of matters which could be dealt with under this particular item, because certainly the fact a person becomes a citizen of the country is of extreme importance to the individual as well as to society as a whole. In looking at the citizenship act, section 22, if I could refer to it to preface my other remarks, we find a Canadian citizen, whether natural born or naturalized is entitled to rights, powers and privileges and is subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities. I underline those words, rights, powers and privileges as well as obligations, duties and liabilities.
I do not know if anyone has made a complete and all-embracing statement as to what is entailed in those rights and obligations. I doubt if such a complete compilation has been made. I am sure that those things sort of constitute our whole fabric of society and change from time to time through the process of time itself as well as a result of legislation and court decisions.
These rights and these obligations that devolve upon Canadian citizens are-or should be, anyway-equally applicable to British Columbia, the province from which I come and right across Canada to Newfoundland. No matter which province a person happens to be resident in, the rights and the obligations he has should be equitable throughout all of the provinces. I think we can assume that one of the fundamental and inalienable rights which we have-and which I mentioned earlier today at another stage of the proceedings-is contained in one of the conventions of the international labour organization at its 31st session in 1948, 11 years ago. While it is true that Canada has not ratified it-something which I think is a failure on the part of the government of Canada, both the one we had previously and this one-this convention concerns the freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize which I submit falls within
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration one of the fundamental rights, powers, privileges, obligations and duties set out in section 22 of the act. The article of that convention has specific reference to the happenings of the last day or two in one of the provinces of Canada. I refer to article 4 which I am going to quote again. It states:
Workers' and employers' organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
Article 11 I should say has specific reference. It states:
Each member of the international labour organization for which this convention is in force-
I admit, as I said earlier, that it is not in force because of failure of this government and the previous Liberal government to ratify it.
-undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organize.
That is one of the rights of citizens in Canada as set out in this international labour convention, section 4.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are here dealing with the citizenship registration branch and the hon. member is talking about other matters entirely. I think the question of relevancy comes in at this stage and he should be restrained from discussing matters which do not relate to this particular item under discussion, namely the citizenship registration branch.


Frank Howard: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say this. The Canadian Citizenship Act specifically mentions certain rights, privileges, duties and obligations. From that are we to assume that we have ten different types of citizenship in Canada or do we have one; and I submit my remarks are in order specifically because we have a despotic premier in Newfoundland who seeks to deny-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the question of citizenship and immigration. He is completely out of order in discussing labour unions or labour relations. Certainly he has no right to describe the premier of a province in the way he did. I therefore declare his remarks to be completely out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you make your ruling in final form, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will allow-as chairmen in this committee over the years have done-hon. members to make submissions on the point of order. I was unable to be in the house for all of the afternoon but as I understand it the arrangement was that we would have a general discussion of citizenship under this item and that it

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration would not be confined to the narrow item as it ordinarily is in under our procedure. If that is correct, Mr. Chairman, as I believe it is, then I submit to you with great emphasis and with great respect that members of parliament have a right under the question of citizenship to discuss what are in fact the rights of citizens within this country. No matter where those rights may be interfered with. If the rights of a Canadian citizen, natural born or naturalized, are interfered with by actions of any authority, in this instance as the hon. member for Skeena has said actions by the Newfoundland government, I would suggest that this House of Commons and the members of it have every right under this item to make such a protest. I think it is a well established fact that, as far as these rights of citizenship are concerned, they are not only the rights that should and can be discussed in parliament but they are the very rights over which this parliament does in fact have jurisdiction. I would therefore suggest that it is very much in order; in fact I would suggest that it is not only in order but it is the duty of hon. members of this house to rise in their places and protest any infringement of rights of Canadian citizens, no matter where that infringement may originate. It is our respectful submission that the premier of Newfoundland-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -has shown a complete disregard of the rights of Canadian citizens-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and that-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member that if he persists in carrying on his remarks while the Chairman is on his feet I shall be forced to report him to the committee.
We are at present in committee of supply discussing a motion which deals with items of citizenship under the department and which has relevance only to items of citizenship under federal jurisdiction. We cannot in this house discuss items which fall under provincial administration and which are relevant to provincial authority. It is therefore completely out of order at this time to refer, in the discussion which is presently taking place, to incidents which have occurred in a province. I therefore declare the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena to be out of order and the last part especially of the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia to be definitely out of order.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. Many times in this chamber when the Chairman or the Speaker has decided a point of order and has given a decision we then find hon. members rising and criticising the judgment of the Chairman or the Speaker. To my mind that is entirely wrong procedure. I point my remarks particularly tonight to the fact that after you gave your ruling, your ruling was challenged. To my mind that is a procedure which is not right. I submit that no member of this house should do such a thing.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, which has been raised, I think I have the right to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The point of order has been dealt with by the Chair. I must remind hon. members that although they can appeal the decision of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, they cannot criticize such decision.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it certainly was not my intention to precipitate such a furore, but we have seen slowly over the years a movement toward uniformity of citizenship as between natural born Canadian citizens and naturalized citizens. The last session of this parliament made certain amendments to the citizenship act which moved us toward more equitability as between natural born Canadian citizens and those who are naturalized. This is a welcome approach, and I am sure it is in the minds of all of us that the application of the rights of Canadian citizens be applied not only equitably as between natural born and naturalized citizens but also between the provinces.
I submit that that is not the case in Canada today, we have different attitudes and approaches as between one province and another with respect to the rights of Canadian citizens. This attitude is better in some provinces than others. But it does get worse. We have in British Columbia, for instance, a different attitude developing with respect to Canadian citizens than exists with Canadian citizens in other provinces. I am talking now, Mr. Chairman, about Section 22 of the act, which deals with the rights, powers, obligations and duties of citizens. These rights of citizens as we know them and as I said earlier must be involved in our own fabric of Canadian society but they are looked at differently in one province than in another because of provincial legislation. We have in British Columbia, the province from which I come, movements afoot in the legislature to deny certain of those rights just as we have a revival, which is reminiscent of the attitude

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
of Hitler and Mussolini when they were in power, taking place in the province of Newfoundland with respect to the rights of certain people who work there.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Once again I must remind the hon. member not to discuss items which are related to provincial authority. He must confine his remarks solely to the item under discussion.


Frank Howard: It is not my desire, Mr. Chairman, to reflect upon your ruling, but I feel very strongly about the rights of individuals in Canada. Those rights are embodied in the citizenship act, which to me is all-inclusive and should apply in one province as well as in another but does not because of people in one province poking sticky political fingers into people's rights. Therefore I must appeal your ruling to the committee.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: May I ask the hon. member which ruling he is presently appealing?


Frank Howard: The ruling which, as I understood it, denied me the right to discuss the question of the rights of Canadian citizens as they are affected by certain actions now taking place in the province of Newfoundland.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must inform the hon.
member that I made no such ruling. The ruling which I made was that we should not discuss in this committee items which are not of a federal nature or which are not under the jurisdiction of this committee.


Frank Howard: Can I then take it, Mr. Chairman, that I can discuss the rights of the citizens in Newfoundland being denied them because of the action by somebody in the legislature done in an hysterical and reprehensible fashion-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I must remind the hon.
member, as I mentioned previously, that he is not permitted to question my ruling. If he wishes to appeal my ruling he must specify in precise words what he is appealing.


Frank Howard: With deference, sir, I am
appealing the ruling which you just made. As I understand it, it denies me the right to discuss the abrogation by the premier of Newfoundland of the rights of citizens who happen to be in Newfoundland.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Once again I must remind the hon. member he cannot question or discuss my ruling.


Frank Howard: Then I appeal it.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The hon. member must confine his remarks strictly to the item of citizenship. My ruling is that all hon. members, and
the hon. member for Skeena in particular, must confine their remarks to the item at present under discussion, which item is citizenship. That is my ruling.


Frank Howard: I am not questioning your ruling, and I have mentioned that two or three times, sir. If your ruling is such that it prevents me from discussing the rights of citizens in Newfoundland, then I appeal the ruling.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Does the hon. member wish to appeal the ruling I have just made?


Frank Howard: I thought I made that clear when I mentioned I desired to appeal your ruling in the first instance, Mr. Chairman.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: To resume this discussion, I would repeat to the hon. member that my ruling is that he confine his remarks to the item under discussion, which plainly mentions citizenship. If he does not wish to confine his remarks to the item under discussion, I must ask him to resume his seat.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, if I may carry on, then, you said I am not at liberty to interpret your ruling. I wish to go on in the same vein as before, but if by your ruling you are preventing me from discussing things which, in my opinion, are quite in order to be discussed under this item-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Howard: I wish to appeal the ruling and I cannot make it any plainer than that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, it is a well-known ruling and you have clearly outlined it that it is the right of any hon. member of this committee to challenge the ruling of the chairman if he wishes. That is a well-known rule which has been put into operation many times. When you pointed out to the hon. member for Skeena the rule and procedure-namely that if he wished to appeal he might do so-he indicated he wished to appeal the ruling. I submit there is no other course left open for the Chair other than to set down the dispute as he sees it and to hand it to Mr. Speaker at which time the ruling of the Chair will be put to the house.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: On this question it is not up to the hon. member for Skeena to interpret my ruling. He may only appeal to the house concerning my ruling. If he wishes to appeal to the house he is at liberty to do so.


Frank Howard: That is at least the sixth time I have indicated my desire to appeal. My answer to the question, "Do you wish to appeal?" is yes.


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Division


Mr. Grafftey:: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In the committee of supply when vote No. 49 concerning the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was being considered the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) attempted to discuss labour conditions which in the chairman's opinion came under the jurisdiction of the government of Newfoundland. The chairman ruled that the hon. member for Skeena must keep his remarks relevant to the vote under discussion whereupon Mr. Howard appealed to the house from the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal from a ruling of the chairman of the committee of supply. In the committee of supply when vote No. 49, concerning the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, was being considered the hon. member for Skeena attempted to discuss labour conditions which in the chairman's opinion came under the jurisdiction of the government of Newfoundland. The chairman ruled that the member for Skeena must keep his remarks relevant to the vote under discussion whereupon Mr. Howard appealed to the house from the ruling of the chair.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. House again in committee of supply. Shall No. 49 carry?


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, now that we have had the decision of the house I wonder whether the minister might not consider this an appropriate time to outline to the House of Commons and the Canadian people exactly what is meant by Canadian citizenship. Does the ownership of a Canadian citizenship certificate mean anything? If so, would the minister, in the absence of a bill of rights, explain to the Canadian people exactly what is meant by national rights of citizenship?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I will ask the librarian *of parliament to supply the gentleman with a list of books from which he can get the *answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50.	Citizenship branch, $881,109.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a few observations to make on item 50. I assure the committee they will have something to do with the item before us. I do not want to take any time in reviewing the activities of the branch generally, but I do want to appeal to the minister to consider very carefully whether or not there is some unnecessary literature being produced by the citizenship branch. I know the minister will be tempted to tell me, if I give any particular examples, that whatever example I give was started in my time and I did not do anything about it.
I am very sorry the Minister of Finance is absent, although I know he has other urgent duties, because I am trying to help him at the moment. I have in my hand a copy of a magazine called "Citizen", which I think in my day was a mimeographed production and which now is printed and bound. I have three copies here. I am not going to go into the contents of them and I am not going to criticize them. Quite frankly, however, I do not think they have any real, positive value that is not easily obtainable in other publications offered by the citizenship council or by other bodies. I am sure when I say this I will have an echo in the heart of every member, however he voted in the recent division, because the volume of printed matter that appears every day on a member's desk is quite staggering. It is not quite so bad when you are a minister because you have a staff that keeps some of it away from you. However, when you have to open your own mail and look it over you realize for the first time I think the tremendous avalanche of printed words that descends on members every day.
I am not going to say that most of these publications are not valuable, but some are of questionable value. I do think it is the duty of every member who feels any responsibility for the taxpayers' money, when he comes to the conclusion, as I have in the case of this particular publication, that it does serve no useful purpose that is not already served by some other publication, to say so. I am not suggesting that the minister bother to defend it or point out its great merits, because if so then I would do the reverse and I would check through the table of contents to prove my point. I do not want to prolong this discussion. I really believe this is one branch of the government
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration service that does a lot of valuable and useful work, but because of its very nature I feel, and I am sure the minister feels, because of the rather amorphous character of the duties of this branch there is a greater tendency than in the citizenship registration branch, which has clearly defined duties, to spread out and perhaps spread too thin. As I used to say sometimes when I was minister, perhaps there is a tendency in the branch to take in one another's washing.
I genuinely feel that while it is important to have liaison officers to give guidance, particularly in the field of language instruction, and to give help, there are many ways in which the work of the branch could be tightened up and some small sum saved, not a great sum, that would really be a net saving to the Canadian people.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, if I may reply to that immediately, I would say that the reason this magazine is printed now instead of being mimeographed is that there were so many requests for it. We now print
4.000	in English and 1,000 in French. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that mimeographing is a very uneconomical way to produce that many copies. There is quite a bit of demand for this publication. If it bothers the hon. gentleman to have it come in his mail, we will be glad to take him off the list.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a far better suggestion for the hon. lady. There is a test which I think we might apply much more frequently to government publications. I would put a price on it and see how many requests there are then. The great mass of the Canadian people, I am sure, do not want this.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They ask for it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The great mass of Canadian people do not ask for it, if there are
4.000	copies for 17 million people. It must cost a certain amount to produce. I would not suggest the magazine be run at a profit and I would doubt the possibility of that. I would suggest that for this and for many other government publications it would be a very good idea to apply the test of the market place, the test of a free economy, and put a price on it to see whether there really is a genuine demand. I am sure that this is the kind of suggestion that will have a good deal of appeal to the leader of the house and to the Minister of Finance in connection with some of the financial worries that they have these days.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to mention a problem that has been drawn to my attention a number of times. It concerns those people

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration who are now members of the British commonwealth and who hold British citizenship. I refer mainly to immigrants, and I have a number of them in my area, who come from the West Indies. The same situation, of course, will apply to other British immigrants from other parts of the commonwealth who hold British citizenship. These people come to Canada, and after the first year are allowed to vote in municipal, provincial and federal elections, and to run for office. However, they do not have the right to apply for citizenship until they have been here five years.
It has been felt by many of them that they have come to Canada with the intention of staying in Canada, so they want to assume Canadian citizenship as soon as possible. I would suggest to the minister that it might be possible, since these people are already educated in the British way of life through their commonwealth associations, that they are suitable citizens. It would be a concession to our commonwealth idea and bring the commonwealth closer together if these people were permitted to become citizens after one year of residence.


Mr. Broome:: I wanted to say a few words on the same subject as was mentioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I, too, suffer from a rather heavy flood of publications. Some of these publications are worth while, but there are many publications which are a mere duplication of things published by other bodies. I am not referring particularly to this department, but my remarks are of a general nature and cover the entire field of government publications. I believe these publications sort of grow on top of themselves, as will be seen if you look at the daily check list every day. I am quite sure that a little bit of editing would not do any harm whatsoever.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister if she will give consideration to this matter of lowering the resident requirement for British citizens who wish to apply for Canadian citizenship?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I give consideration to everything that is submitted to me in the House of Commons. I can assure the hon. member of that fact.
Indian Affairs Branch

56. Administration, $680,907.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks. I think possibly I should give some information to the committee. The 1959-60 main estimates for Indian affairs show an increase of $6,563,652 over 1958-59. The major portion of

this increase is attributable to two basically important fields, namely education and welfare of Indians.
The total increase in operating costs for education is $2,928,886 and for welfare $2,322,104. This envisages the employment of 42 additional teachers at day schools and 32 at residential or a total increase in teaching staff of 74. There is an increase of $350,000 to further assist in the education of Indian children in association with non-Indians and: an additional amount of $765,499 to finance the operation and maintenance of residential schools. The program of residential school construction calls for an additional amount of $795,300 over 1958-59. The increase in the welfare appropriation is largely due to increased requirements to meet relief costs and the care of indigents.
In the all important field of education good progress has been made. For example, in the 1958-59 fiscal year the unrevised figures show a total enrolment of 38,836 Indian pupils in all schools. This includes 8,429 pupils who attend non-Indian schools, universities, teachers' colleges and commercial or trade schools and represents an increase of 1,099 over the previous year. The estimates presented for consideration visualize a further increase in numbers and further participation by Indian pupils in higher education.
In the past academic year we have had about 2,500 students taking post-elementary school training. There were but 200 in 1948 and it is my hope that this tenfold increase will gather momentum with each year. To this end a system of scholarships offers further incentive to Indian students to continue their education. These scholarships, representing a total value of $25,000, are offered in addition to the normal assistance given at post-elementary school level. Thirteen awards were made in the current year.
In both Indian day and residential schools the practical arts courses such as home economics, woodwork, sheet metal work, et cetera enrolled 5,898 students. For this program 48 instructors were employed for classes enrolling 2,683 boys. For the girls 63 teachers were employed to give instruction in home economics to over 3,215 students.
It is planned to construct 88 classrooms together with other necessary construction including teachers' residences. In line with the efforts being made to educate Indian children in association with non-Indians, provision is made for contributions towards the construction of 11 joint schools.
The residential school construction program, designed to take care of children of northern migratory Indians and those from broken homes, shows an increase. It includes

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
two hostels for children attending elementary and high schools in Whitehorse and a start on the replacement of one old school, namely St. Mary's residential school, New Westminster agency, British Columbia.
In the field of Indian housing the appropriation was doubled in 1958-59 when the amount of $2 million was provided. This has made possible an expanded program of housing construction and an improved standard of housing, as well as an increased number of cost sharing agreements with bands with sufficient funds to participate in such undertakings. During 1958-59 a survey of housing was undertaken which will have an important bearing on the building program in future. The emphasis on financial assistance to Indians in northern and remote areas will continue.
In 1959-60 it is proposed to maintain the expenditure at the same level of $2 million and it is estimated this will cover the financing in whole or in part of close to 1,000 housing units. On the average for every dollar expended from public funds in recent years there has been an equal or greater amount provided from personal contributions by the Indians themselves in the form of labour, cash and materials, band funds, and Veterans Land Act grants available to Indian veterans.
During the debate on the departmental estimates in the last session of this house the question of the quantity of relief supplied on behalf of Indians in need was raised by some hon. members opposite. I said at that time that this subject was under constant review. As a result of a thorough and careful study improved standards and revised procedures of relief administration on behalf of Indians are being introduced throughout the country on April 1 next, in order that Indians in destitute circumstances may receive, as nearly as possible, the same treatment and assistance available for non-Indians in need in Canadian communities generally.
As I informed hon. members last year, the department in 1957 embarked upon a limited experimental program in the payment of relief in cash and in dollar value orders, replacing relief in kind according to a ration scale. This experiment has proven to be successful and on the basis of this experience and following a comprehensive review of scales of assistance and procedures in effect in various provinces and non-Indian communities throughout Canada, these methods are tot be adopted universally with effect April 1 next.
At the same time new scales of food allowances in terms of dollar value have been authorized, which represent a substantial advance over the retail value of the foods
listed on the former ration scale, and an increase over the rates payable in the experimental projects which have been in force since 1957.
These changes are costly, as evidenced by the fact that provision is made for expenditures of approximately $3 million in excess of those incurred in 1957-58. It is considered essential, however, that adequate assistance be provided for Indians in need in order that they may maintain a satisfactory standard of living at times when they are unable to do this through their own efforts. It is also the purpose of these changes to bring procedures and standards of assistance in line with those in force in non-Indian communities; to give greater responsibility to the Indians in the management of their own affairs.
For the information of the house, the new scales of assistance will be as follows. Please note that the standard rates may be supplemented up to the amounts indicated in columns A, B, C and D in the table, to provide for special circumstances and cases where local costs of food are high.
Special rates payable in Standard high cost areas and in
rates	special	circumstances	A	B	c	DSingle adult .. Each additional	$22	$25	$28	$33	$38adult or child over 12 years of age 	15	17	19	22	26Each child 12	years of age or under 	12	15	16	18	21
An important change in branch organization has resulted from the recent establishment of an economic development division which is now in the process of being staffed. The establishment of this separate division is reflected in the introduction of two new votes which encompass a number of items concerned with fur development, agriculture, urban-type employment and other commercial enterprises designed to permit the attainment by Indians of a higher standard of living. It has been recognized for some time that the rapidly growing Indian population and the relatively low returns from traditional Indian pursuits make it imperative that more attention be paid to economic problems and to employment.
A placement program is now in operation with the object of assisting Indians to find employment in a wider range of fields than has hitherto been open to them. Placement officers are now employed in six of the eight administrative regions, with a senior placement officer in Ottawa, and it is planned in 1959-60 to engage two more such officers, one

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration for the maritimes and one for Saskatchewan. This program is carried on in co-operation with the national employment service and other agencies. Group placements in seasonal employment have been increasingly successful. For example, a total of just under 1,000 Indians from Alberta and Saskatchewan reserves were recruited to the beet fields of southern Alberta in 1958. In addition, in the last two fiscal years special arrangements were made for the employment of Indians in clearing of roads in the Yellow-knife-Fort Rae area of the Northwest Territories.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in the few moments at my disposal, having listened to the minister as carefully as I could, I would like to express at least my own sincere appreciation for her having made the changes in the matters of welfare cash payments, the increases toward education and educational facilities, and so on, which she has just announced. In the last couple of sessions I have had occasion to complain about some of these matters, particularly the inadequate food rationing arrangements which applied to Indians. I am very pleased about this, and I am sure that many of our native Indian people who have occasion to call on this service of the department will be appreciative too. The minister is taking a much more progressive attitude toward this phase of our Indian problems than has been taken for quite a number of years. Some of these grievances have been of very, very long standing with the Indian people, and I am sure this is only the first step toward giving Indians the opportunity to play the fullest possible role in society.
I hope you will excuse me, Mr. Chairman, if I make brief mention of a notice of motion that is now on the order paper with respect to the establishment of a joint committee of this house and the other place to deal with Indian affairs. I notice that it is almost a month or four and a half weeks ago that notice of this motion was given, and I hope it will not be too long delayed before we are able to proceed with the motion in the name of the hon. minister and that this joint committee is established to deal with the Indian Act and Indian affairs in general.
There is one phase, education, which probably in importance overshadows the long range views with respect to our hopes and desires for all Indian people, and probably even overshadows all of the other activities of the Indian affairs branch of the department, and of course takes into account the educational facilities of the various provinces and of private organizations. I would like,
[Mrs. Falrclough.l

if I may, on this question of education, to-point out again, if it is necessary to point it out, that the desire for education on the part of Indians has been of long standing.
In 1916 a royal commission on Indian affairs was established in the province of British Columbia, and I have a copy of one of the volumes of its report. This 1916 royal commission was not appointed, incidentally, to deal with the question of education, but was appointed to deal with the question of delineating certain areas for reserves for particular bands and also the question of rights of way through Indian reserves or property for a railroad. I point out that the specific object of this royal commission in British Columbia in 1916, which is long before many of the members sitting in this house today were even born-certainly some years before I was born-was not to deal with education but to deal with the delineation of reserves. However, in the process of that they compiled a certain amount of information about population of bands, the occupation of people in those bands, the condition of them, the educational facilities, the head of the families, how many people under 19, and so on, giving quite a statistical analysis of the population of each band.
I would like to point to some of the comments which are made in this report of 1916, some 43 years ago, and the incidental references the commission made to education of Indian bands and the desire of Indians to obtain that education. In the riding which I represent there is quite a large population of native Indian people, and I wish to refer to how, 43 years ago, native Indians had this attitude toward education. Now we are very slowly and finally realizing the ideals and hopes they had at that time. In the report reference is made to the Kitseguecla band and their condition. It says that they are progressive and comfortably situated. With respect to the view of the Indians on education it says that Indians are understood to strongly favour industrial schools. As I say, this was some 43 years ago, and the Indian people in that reservation at Kitseguecla were desirous of some form of educational facilities in the way of industrial schools. Then there is reference to the Kitamaat band and their condition. This was long before many of us in this house were born, and long before our parents thought we would be entering schools and proceeding through the various steps of education.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I assume we will go ahead, as the leader indicated last night, with the agriculture estimates tomorrow?


Mr. Green:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the intention.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And private members' day on Monday.


Howard Charles Green: Yes.
At 10 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OP CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Citizenship-
Supply-Items Passed
49.	Citizenship registration branch, $477,571.
50.	Citizenship branch, $881,109.
51.	Grants to organizations as detailed in the estimates, $40,000.
Immigration branch-
52.	Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,199,386.
53.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $13,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $6,899,092.
54.	Field and inspectional service, abroad, $2,261,296.
55.	Trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers, subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment: and payments to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $3,100,000.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

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

Mr. Denis: 1.	What was the number of government employees in departmental branches, services and corporations in June, 1957?
2.	What is the present number?
3.	How many resigned or were dismissed in that period?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1.	The number of government employees in departmental branches, services and departmental corporations at June 30, 1957, was 192,884.
2.	Latest available information is at June 30, 1958, and the numbers were 201,008.
3.	Statistics on resignations and dismissals are not available.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


Mr. Argue: 1.	Did the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences make any recommendations regarding the administration and control of the national museum of Canada, and the status of its director?
2.	If so, what was the text of its recommendations in this regard?
3.	Have any of these recommendations been implemented?
4.	If so, which ones have been so implemented, and how have they been carried out?
5.	If not, what reasons does the government hold for disregarding these recommendations at present?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	The text may be found at page 322 of the royal commission's report.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) The geological survey is moving to new quarters in the coming summer and the national gallery moves early next year, thus making the whole of the Victoria museum building available for museum purposes; (b) The national museum's budget has been trebled, increasing from $228,669 in the year 1951-52 to $675,776 in the year 1959-60; (c) The national museum was formerly a division of the national parks branch and was headed by a chief curator at a salary of $8,200-$9,100. In 1956 the national museum of Canada was divided administratively into two branches. One of these, the natural history branch, is headed by a director whose salary is $11,000.
5.	Not applicable.



HISTORICAL MUSEUMS-RECOMMENDATIONS OF ROYAL COMMISSION

Mr. Argue: 1.	Did the royal commission on arts, letters and sciences make any recommendations regarding the establishment of a Canadian historical museum; how it should be administered and controlled, and the status of its director?
2.	If so, what was the text of its recommendations in this regard?
3.	Have any of these recommendations been implemented to any degree?
4.	If so, which ones have been so implemented and in what manner have they been carried out?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	The text may be found on pages 323 and 324 of the royal commission's report.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) In 1956 the national museum of Canada was divided administratively into two branches, one of which is known as the human history branch. The position of director for this branch was created in January 1, 1957 and the director was receiving recently $11,000; (b) The control and administration of the Canadian war museum was transferred on April 1, 1958 from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and entrusted to the human history branch of the national museum of Canada.



C.M.H.C., FORT WILLIAM, ONT.  LEGAL SERVICES

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Were any solicitors or other legal talent used by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation office in Fort William during 1957 and 1958?
2.	If so, what were their names, addresses and the amounts of the fees?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	The names of solicitors in the Fort William area who were retained by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or who were paid fees in respect of work allocated by the corporation are detailed below:
Murray W. Babe, Cuthbertson Bldg., Fort William; W. J. Weiler, 208 Grain Exchange Bldg., Fort William; C. B. Devlin, Cuthbertson Bldg., Fort William; R. L. Seaman, Public Utilities Bldg., Port Arthur; A. A. Kajander, Ruttan Block, Port Arthur; H. G. Blanchard, Tomlinson Block, Port Arthur; Gavin H. Young, Tomlinson Block, Port Arthur; C. J. Watt, 418 Portage Ave., Fort Frances.
Fees and disbursements paid by the corporation to Gavin H. Young amounted to $604.65 and those paid to C. B. Devlin to $25. The other work involved consisted of title

search and the preparation of mortgages covering loans made by the corporation under the National Housing Act, 1954. In this connection the corporation allocates the work to the solicitors but their legal fees are paid by the borrower. The corporation has no record of the amount of these fees.



MAIL BOX CONTRACTS

Mr. McBain: 1.	Were any tenders called by the Post Office Department between May 1. 1957, and December 31, 1958 for (a) rural mail boxes; (b) mail storage boxes; (c) combination letter and parcel boxes?
2.	If so, what was the name and address of firm and tender price submitted?
3.	On each contract, who was the successful tender?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	(a), (b) and (c) Yes.
2.
per box
(a)	St. Thomas Metal Signs Ltd.,
St. Thomas, Ont	$	3.94
B. Applebaum, Ottawa, Ont.	3.95
La Compagnie Morin & Fils
Montmagny, P.Q	 4.048
L'lslet Metal Inc., L'lsletville, P.Q	 4.95
Galt Metal Industries Ltd.,
Galt, Ont	 5.04
Rousseau Metal Inc., St. John
Port Joli, P.Q	 5.37
B. K. Joli Inc., Montreal,
P.Q	 5.65
W. R. Elliott Ltd., Kitchener,
Ont	 8.58
Engineering Products of Can.
Ltd., Montreal, P.Q	 11.11
each
(b)	Rousseau Metal Inc., St. Jean
Port Joli, P.Q	 $	31.25
B. Applebaum, Ottawa, Ont.	31.50
St. Thomas Metal Signs, St.
St. Thomas, Ont	 31.57J
Galt Metal Industries Ltd.,
Galt, Ont	 32.45
La Cie Morin & Fils Ltee,
Montmagny, P.Q	 32.89
Geo. White & Sons Co. Ltd.,
London, Ont	 32.90
L'lslet Metal Inc., L'lsletville, P.Q	 33.11
Rubenstein Bros. Co. Ltd.,
Montreal, P.Q	 33.40
Tudhope Specialties Ltd.,
Orillia, Ont	 34.45
Beach Foundry Ltd., Ottawa,
Ont	 35.11
B. K. Johl Inc., Montreal,
P.Q	 36.50
66968-9-106
Questions
Joseph Sankey & Sons Ltd.,
Smiths Falls, Ont	 38.60
Continental Can Co. of Canada Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.	..	42.39
Engineering Products of Can.
Ltd., Montreal, P.Q	 55.24
Rosco Metal & Roofing Products, Ottawa, Ont	 56.95
W. R. Elliott Ltd., Kitchener,
Ont	 58.85
Canadian Car Co. Ltd., Longueuil, P.Q	 83.75
Canadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal, P.Q	 101.40
Total cost
(c)	St. Thomas Metal Signs Ltd.,
St. Thomas, Ont	 $ 62,021.15
Galt Metal Industries, Galt,
Ont	 77,250.00
B. K. Johl Inc., Montreal,
P.Q	 87,100.00
W. R. Elliott, Kitchener,
Ont	 187,180.00
Frank P. Lalonde, Dorval,
P.Q	 225,000.00
3.	(a) St. Thomas Metal Signs Ltd., St. Thomas, Ont.; (b) Rousseau Metal Inc., St. Jean Port Joli, P.Q.; (c) St. Thomas Metal Signs Ltd., St. Thomas, Ont.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


Mr. Argue: 1.	Has an investigation ever been made by any agency of the government since January 1, 1945, relating to the efficacy of the manner in which the national museum of Canada is organized, administered and its policies determined?
2.	If so, on what dates were these investigations made, what agency carried them out and who were its members, by whom were these investigations authorized, and what were the terms of reference of each investigation?
3.	Were any reports made as result of these investigations?
4.	If so, what was the date on which each was submitted, to whom was it submitted, by whom, and what were the findings and recommendations in each case?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Since 1945 there have been the usual reviews and reassessments by officers of the department, of the civil service commission and of the treasury board as well as the general enquiry into agencies of the Canadian government, such as the national museum of Canada, of the royal commission on the advancement of arts, letters and sciences in Canada. In 1958 there was a special investigation into the situation existing then in the human history branch of the national museum of Canada.

Questions
2.	The usual reviews have taken place as required when policy questions arose and were carried out by the responsible officials of the department or other agencies concerned. The royal commission was established by order in council No. 1786 of April 1, 1949, and its terms of reference and membership are to be found on pages xi, xii, xiii and xv. The investigation as to the situation in the museum was undertaken by the deputy minister and an assistant deputy minister.
3.	Yes.
4.	The royal commission's report was submitted to the governor in council in May, 1951 and its recommendations on the national museum are to be found on pages 322, 323 and 324. The report on the situation in the museum was transmitted on January 14, 1959 by the deputy minister to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The minister's statement in the House of Commons on January 20, gave an outline of the nature of the findings and of the recommendations.



NATIONAL MUSEUM-INVESTIGATION INTO PERSONNEL DIFFICULTIES

Mr. Argue: 1.	Was an investigation ever authorized by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, since June 1, 1958, relating to difficulties among any of the personnel of the human history branch of the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so. on what date was the investigation undertaken, who made the investigation, by whom was it authorized, when was a report submitted on the matter, and to whom was it submitted?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	The investigation began on June 11, 1958 at the direction of the deputy minister. It was carried out partly by an assistant deputy minister and partly by the deputy minister. Interim reports were submitted from time to time to the deputy minister and to the minister. The final report to the minister was made on January 14, 1959.



PUBLIC BUILDING, BRUSSELS, ONT.-PAINTING

Mr. Denis: 1.	Was the interior of the public building at Brussels, Ontario, painted during 1958?
2.	If so. were tenders called for the work by public advertisement?
3.	If not, how were tenders invited?
4.	To whom were invitations to tender sent?
5.	From whom were tenders received and what was the amount of each tender?
6.	To whom was the contract awarded and in what amount?
7.	When was this building painted previously to 1958?
8.	Who was the contractor?
9.	What was the amount of the contract?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Nil.
5.	Ed. M. Sharpe, Listowel, $1,165; Lloyd Siddall, Listowel, $995.
6.	Lloyd Siddall, Listowel, $995.
7.	July, 1952 (interior painting).
8.	Walter A. Williamson, Brussels, Ontario.
9.	$2,175 (including caretaker's living quarters).



HENSALL, ONT.  POST OFFICE ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Denis: 1.	Has the public works department been authorized to enter into a lease for a new post office building in the village of Hensall, Ontario?
2.	If so, who is the lessor?
3.	Was the location and design of the building determined by the lessor or the department?
4.	Were the department requirements for accommodation made known by way of advertisement? If not, how was the lessor selected?
5.	What is the estimated cost of the completed building?
6.	What will be the total cost per annum to the department for this accommodation, including caretaking and other services?
7.	Does the crown or the landlord provide hydro
and water?
8.	How many years does the lease cover?
9.	Has the department an option to renew the lease at the same cost per annum?
10.	What factors were taken into consideration in determining the annual rental?
11.	Is this building intended to serve other purposes than those of the post office? If so, what is it to be used for?
12.	Why was it necessary to secure new accommodation for the post office in Hensall, Ontario?
Answer by: Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister
of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. R. H. Middleton, Hensall, Ontario.
3.	The lessor offered space for rental in a building he intended to construct. Both location and design were found acceptable by the post office and public works departments.
4.	(a) No; (b) Answered by No. 3.
5.	Information not available.
6.	$1,628 including estimated cost of services to be supplied by the crown.
7.	Crown pays lighting costs and water rates.
8.	Ten years.
9.	No.
10.	Rental was determined by the lessor and compared by public works officials with other commercial rentals for similar type of accommodation in the area.
11.	Post Office Department, only.
12.	To provide improved and enlarged accommodation for Post Office Department.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Canadian Embassy

[Stage Direction]
The Canadian charge d'affaires ad interim presents his compliments to the acting secretary of state and has the honour to refer to the matter of restrictions affecting exports of oil from Canada to the United States and in particular to the recent proposal on which the administrator of the voluntary oil import program has requested comment.
The notes of the Canadian ambassador to the Secretary of State dated January 15 and June 23, 1958, set forth the views of the Canadian government on the principles involved in such restrictive measures. It would now appear desirable to restate these views in the light of the proposal for revision of the basis of the import restrictions which has been put forward for discussion by the administrator of the voluntary oil import program.
The Canadian government continues to believe that there can be no justification on grounds of security (or, for that matter, on other grounds) for United States restrictions on oil coming from Canada. United States government restrictions on oil imports from Canada, imposed in peacetime for security reasons, are not reconcilable with the need of Canada and the United States to pool their oil resources in time of common emergency.
The Canadian government acknowledges that the proposal by the administrator of the voluntary oil import program attempts to take into account the importance to Canada of exports of oil to the United States, and the importance to United States refineries operating on Canadian crude oil of continued freedom to use that oil. Section 5(d) of the proposal would appear to offer to refineries in district II using Canadian oil some means of mitigating the very damaging effects of other sections of the new proposal.
The Canadian government would point out, however, that application of section 5(d) would be a matter of administrative discretion, rather than formal directive. The Canadian government is also aware that the United States government is subject to very considerable pressures from interests which would seek to make the oil import program more rather than less restrictive. The United States government will therefore understand that while the Canadian 66968-9-106$
government is appreciative of the consideration shown for the Canadian position, the Canadian government could only await the actual outcome of the proposed revision with concern.
Further, the Canadian government would not wish any comments on the current proposal to be taken to imply a preference on the part of the Canadian government for one basis of import restrictions as against another. Furthermore so long as any import restrictions continue to be applied against Canadian oil, they will have a deleterious effect on Canadian-United States relations.
Following the imposition of United States restrictions imports from Canada have not only fallen sharply but have declined more seriously than imports from other areas supplying oil to the United States. Examination of United States import figures for petroleum and its products for the months from July 1957 indicates that the volume of crude oil and products moving from Venezuela and the Netherlands Antilles together to the United States has continued fairly level; a decline in crude oil imports has been offset by increases in imports of products. Middle Eastern crude oil and product sales have declined somewhat. In contrast, Canadian sales of crude and products have declined sharply, and by May 1958 were less than half the volume of July 1957. In July, 1957 Canada supplied 9.5 per cent of total United States imports of crude oil and products; by May, 1958 Canada was supplying only 4.5 per cent of such imports. Thus, imports from Canada, the most secure outside source of oil for the United States in normal times and in times of emergency, have fallen much more than those from offshore areas since the inauguration of the United States program established on grounds of United States national security.
This disproportionate decline would appear to have come about largely because of indirect effects of the United States program.
In district V, offshore oil from various sources, after it was denied ready access to the United States eastern seaboard and California, has virtually displaced Canadian oil in Puget sound. It would appear that the Puget sound refiners, having been limited as to the amount of crude oil they could import, have tended to disregard other considerations and have turned to the cheapest available sources of imported oil-Venezuela, the Middle East
[Stage Direction]
and the Far East-partly to offset the uneconomic use of United States domestic crude brought in from California; in an open market they might well have continued to use a substantial proportion of Canadian oil.
Similarly, in district II, Venezuelan oil, when limited in its access to other markets in the United States, has been displacing Canadian oil, though the displacement has been less than in the case of district V.
The United States import program has thus borne most heavily upon the source of imported oil for the United States which would be least subject to interruption, and which is most akin to the United States in the cost structure and market prorationing arrangements of its oil industry. Canadian oil is not and has not been a factor contributing to the problems which led to the institution of the United States oil import program. It is therefore a matter of regret and concern to the Canadian government that, notwithstanding the unquestioned goodwill of the United States government, the Canadian oil industry should not only suffer from the import restrictions but
should suffer more than the oil industries of other areas especially since the Canadian industry cannot be regarded as having contributed to the problems intended to be met by the United States oil import program. The United States government will recall that in its note of February 19, 1958, it expressed the view that strong petroleum industries in both countries "contribute importantly to the support of the defence efforts with which both Canada and the United States are associated".
In the light of the considerations set out above, it is the hope of the Canadian government that, both because of the current adverse effects and because of the potential consequences for future petroleum policies, the government of the United States in its current re-examination of the import program will find itself able to remove the restrictions which have been imposed on the access of Canadian oil to markets in the United States.
A. E. Ritchie
The Canadian Embassy,
Washington, D. C.
October 20, 1958.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 6, 1959

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McCleave.