1960-06-16

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.
Seventh report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether it is a fact that the ambassador of Cuba to Canada has resigned and has asked permission to remain in Canada.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I had an interview yesterday afternoon with the Cuban ambassador to Canada, and he advised me that he was submitting his resignation to his government. At that time nothing was said to me about asking permission to remain in Canada, but I was in the midst of a meeting on the Columbia river negotiations and did not have very much time. I believe that subsequently he did raise this question, and that matter is, of course, being given careful consideration.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of the fact that, generally, grain delivery quotas on the prairies are lower now than they were a year ago. Between 300 and 400 points a year ago were on the 7 or 8-bushel quota, whereas there are none this year. Could the minister tell the house whether quotas are likely to exceed' 6 bushels per acre at the end of the crop year, and could he comment on the progress that is being made toward providing equalized quotas and equal opportunities for delivery by July 31?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: It is just in order to provide equalized opportunity and equalize quotas that greater attention has been paid this year to the quota distribution system. Actually it is better this year than it was last year. At the end of May last year there were 88 points on the 3-bushel quota and this year there are only 3. Last year there were 709 on the 4-bushel quota and this year 335. Last year there were 556 on the 5-bushel quota and this year 1,128. Last year there were 274 on the 6-bushel quota and this year 541. This indicates an improved condition. There were a number on the 7-bushel quota last year but that was not a clear picture of conditions, because in some of those areas the 7-bushel quota could not be fulfilled. This year an attempt is being made to bring everybody up to the 6-bushel quota across the board before there is any move made to raise it higher, and so far it has worked out very satisfactorily.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to say whether grain deliveries this year are likely to equal those of last year, or will they remain as they are now, behind those of last year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, that is a question based on statistical information which we would have to assemble. The hon. member asks for a forecast to July 31. It is not possible at this moment to determine accurately what will be the final marketing of grain by July 31. If the hon. member wants the statistical information I think we could supply it if he would put his question on the order paper.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the statistical information in my hand. I wonder if we can make up the 30 million bushels in deliveries we are now short from a year ago?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Every effort will be made to equal the amounts that were delivered last year, but here again it is not possible to forecast at this time just what the position will be by July 31.



ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormislon (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National

Inquiries of the Ministry Resources. When will the government announce its decision on loans for seed grain to needy pioneer settlers in western Canada?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to make this announcement some time ago. I am glad to have the opportunity this morning to answer the question of the hon. member for Melville.
Between 1876 and 1925 the federal government advanced loans for seed grain, fodder for animals and other relief to needy settlers in western Canada. Supplementary advances which were made in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan between 1919 and 1923 were implemented on a 50-50 joint federal-provincial basis. These advances were secured by liens registered against the homesteads, pre-emptions and other lands of the settlers concerned.
From 1927 to the present time the total principal indebtedness has been reduced from $16 million to approximately $200,000, through an extended program of compromise settlements; outright cancellation where extenuating circumstances justified such action; tax and mortgage foreclosure proceedings, or reversion of the lands to the crown. All the liens registered against lands in British Columbia and Manitoba were discharged or released some time ago, and payments in respect of the remaining Alberta and Saskatchewan indebtedness have fallen off in recent years due to unfavourable crop conditions.
Investigation has revealed that the majority of the outstanding accounts are registered against marginal or submarginal farms owned by small unit operators, many of whom suffered severe crop damage during the past winter, and further payments would cause unwarranted financial hardship.
Therefore cabinet has granted approval for cancellation of the remainder of the federal share of seed grain indebtedness, and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan have concurred in this recommendation with respect to the 1919-1923 joint federal-provincial advances.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the practice is growing, apparently, for the ministry to make statements and announcements of policy on the orders of the day when, under our procedure, it is not possible to make the comments which the opposition should be entitled to make. This procedure has been followed not only by the present minister but by others on preceding days. I should think Your Honour would find it helpful to remind the ministers of this government that statements of this kind should be made on motions.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know this has happened in the past; it happened under the former government. I am not going to disagree with the hon. member, and I am sure the house would be glad to concur in giving him an opportunity to make his observations.


Mr. Speaker:: If an answer to a question is in effect a statement, I think the suggestion the Prime Minister makes is a very appropriate one because the resorting to question and answer to make what is an official announcement should not deprive members of the house, or at least representatives of the two opposition parties, of the opportunity to comment. Yesterday leave was given to the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make a statement in answering a question and there was an opportunity for comment. The answer which has given rise to the hon. member's point of order was, I think, rather long and perhaps more in the nature of a statement than an answer appropriate to the question that was asked.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order, I would point out that in the particular case today leave was not granted, and I would simply say to the Prime Minister that I should have thought that he, as the head of the government, would support the position we have taken.


Hazen Robert Argue: I take it that observations are in order, and I also have a supplementary question. These old seed grain liens have been a burden for some producers in western Canada for a very long time. Over the years I have had some experience in negotiating settlements for producers having difficulty in making the required payments, and I must say in all fairness that the officials of the department have been most generous in scaling down the amount of the indebtedness so the farmers could meet their obligations. Now that the total amount is down to such a small figure as $200,000 I think the action of the federal government in cancelling the federal portion of the remaining debt is probably an efficient way to deal with the matter.
My supplementary question has to do with this point. I was wondering whether this welcome but rather limited statement as to the cancelling of the seed grain liens was the government's alternative to the western farm delegation which has requested deficiency payments.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think the observation of the hon. member for Assiniboia is hardly warranted. The government, as is well known-


Hazen Robert Argue: This is the half a peanut I was talking about.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -is willing to do anything at any time to help the farmers of western Canada, and this is just another indication of our policy.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. However, in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary will take it as notice.
Railways serving the ports of Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin have raised from two to seven days the period of free time during which goods wagons or freight cars may stand at the dock without charge to the shipper. Would the minister bring this to the attention of Canadian railroads and recommend that they take similar action in order to improve the competitive position of Fort William and Port Arthur in relation to these two United States ports?


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take that question as notice in the minister's absence. I am sure the minister will bring this to the attention of the railway officials and the hon. member will probably receive his reply from the railway officials.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to a question asked yesterday morning by the hon. member for Vancouver East in connection with the establishment of an international park at Point Roberts in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
Interdepartmental consultation has taken place in Ottawa, and the various facets of the proposal for an international park at Point Roberts have been carefully examined. There are certain practical difficulties. One difficulty is that the land involved does not lie wholly within the control of the federal government. There would have to be some move made by the provincial government in support of the establishment of such a park and also, of course, there would have to be some initiative shown by the United States
Inquiries of the Ministry federal government. If the provincial government makes a move and is willing to cooperate the federal government would certainly give very sympathetic consideration to this proposal.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has any approach been made to the federal government by the provincial government or the parks commission of British Columbia? I take it that no approach whatever has been made.


Howard Charles Green: So far as I can ascertain no approach has been made by the provincial government. Letters may have been written in earlier days by the lower mainland parks association, or whatever the proper name of the organization is, but I am told by my officials that no approach whatever has been made by the provincial government.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made to the press last week by Major General Bruce Matthews, president of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company and president of the national Liberal federation, to the effect that he and members of his family have sold their interest in the Excelsior Life to American interests, would the minister tell the house whether the government has the power to prevent control of the assets of this company, totalling over $100 million and representing the savings of thousands of Canadian policyholders, from passing into foreign hands?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is a matter of regret on the part of all of us that the control of this fine old Canadian life insurance company should be passing out of Canadian hands. It is, however, a corporation which was incorporated under the laws of the province of Ontario in 1889. It did register with the federal authorities in 1897 and has operated under the normal federal supervision since that time, as do a few but very few provincially incorporated life insurance companies. But this gives parliament and the government no authority or jurisdiction in this situation. The legislation which I introduced in the autumn of 1957 and which was passed by parliament applies, of course, to life insurance companies under federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, neither parliament

Inquiries of the Ministry nor the government has any authority or jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer of control of this company to foreign hands.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Did the government intervene informally in this matter in order to prevent this happening as was done successfully by the previous government in a similar situation involving another insurance company?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there were discussions between General Matthews and the superintendent of insurance in relation to this subject. I did not discuss the matter personally with General Matthews, but I was made acquainted with the results of the discussions between the federal superintendent of insurance and General Matthews. The views of the federal authorities in this respect I think are well known, and the policy of the government is well known. There was some information asked of General Matthews by the superintendent of insurance, I am told, which General Matthews did not feel he was prepared to give. I point out, however, that this is a matter that falls under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether he does not feel that he personally, as Minister of Finance, if he had wished and if it were the government's desire and policy, could have intervened, just as the previous administration did in the case of an attempt by outsiders to purchase a dominant interest in the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the previous administration did at any time intervene with a view to preventing the control of any Canadian life insurance companies from passing into foreign hands, then I can only say they were singularly unsuccessful.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Inaccurate again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One of the reasons we as a government, very soon after taking office, in fact during the first session after the election in 1957, asked parliament to pass legislation in this field with a view to preventing control of Canadian life insurance companies from passing into foreign hands, was that the control of five substantial Canadian life insurance companies had already passed into foreign hands under the previous government. This was the background against which this legislation was introduced in 1957.
The hon. member has just referred particularly to the Sun Life Assurance Company. I do not know why he claims any credit for


the government of which he was a member in that respect. I have some information on this subject which indicates that credit for preventing the loss of control of this corporation should go to someone who was not connected with the former government at all, and I hope was not a supporter of it.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: May I ask a
further supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister accept my congratulations upon being so well and so fully informed on so casual a question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thank the hon. member for his kind message, which I accept in good part. I might say I accept it with due appreciation. I may tell him, however, that for some days I have been expecting that somebody would be asking a question on this matter. I had thought that perhaps one of the members opposite would take advantage of the opportunity to ask this question. The matter has been referred to in the press from time to time of late, and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. Would the minister consider initiating taxation policies that would act as a deterrent in cases like this with respect to the transfer of companies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member is asking for a declaration of fiscal policy on orders of the day which is contrary to any practice of the house. Furthermore, the matter has been debated rather extensively up to this point. I think it might be dropped.



INQUIRY AS TO BETTING ODDS ON PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES IN ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twillingate):: I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he could inform the house what odds are being offered by the national director of the Progressive Conservative party on the election of one Progressive Conservative member in the Quebec provincial election?



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Can the minister indicate whether the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are presently conducting a so

called census, or are undertaking to obtain information by questionnaire, of people of Chinese origin across Canada? If so, under what authority is such a census being undertaken, and can the minister also indicate whether the Chinese people are obliged to answer any such questions?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: I will take the question as notice and an answer will be given in due course.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Skeena made some inquiries with reference to land required for highway purposes in Ontario. I presume he had reference to highway No. 21 which passes through Saugeen Indian reserve No. 29.
The highways department of the province of Ontario is desirous of securing sufficient land to widen and improve this highway, and it has been negotiating with the council of the Chippewas of the Saugeen band in an effort to reach agreement as to the conditions on which the land required for widening would be made available. Negotiations are still under way, and in the meantime the land has not been made available to the province.
The normal procedure in handling applications for lands required for public purposes is to require the applicant to reach agreement with the Indians concerned. When such agreement has been reached the land is made available under section 35 of the Indian Act by order of the governor in council. As I stated yesterday, the provisions of the Indian Act are always followed in matters of this kind.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport, in the absence of the minister, in view of the fact that the air terminal at Uplands was opened unofficially yesterday by a former prime minister of Canada, whether the government has any plans for an official opening and, if so, when it will take place.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: We will take that as notice and let you know, Jack.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member was not addressing the Chair.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house whether it is the policy of this department or the policy of the government that civilian employees at army bases must be discharged at the age of 70 whether or not they are capable of working on? I ask the question because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that question might better be on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: Might I say that I know of a case where on the basis of orders from Ottawa a man was discharged because he was 70 years of age and-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: I wanted to ask the minister direct.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING OF FISCAL COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Minister of Finance able to report on the dominion-provincial annual "seminar" which has been held in Ottawa this week?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any seminar being held. I am aware, however, that an important, useful and constructive meeting of the federal-provincial continuing committee on fiscal questions was held in this city on Monday and Tuesday. It was called for the purpose of preparing in its field for the plenary conference to be held in this city on July 25, 26 and 27.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question. Has the minister any comment to make, in view of what he has just said about the reported statement of the premier of Ontario, namely that since Ontario needs more moneys, which are apparently not going to come from the federal government, Ontario proposes to no longer continue leaving to the federal government the collection of taxes which it feels belongs to that province?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, all the present agreements under which direct tax fields or standard tax fields are rented under the provisions of the Federal-Provincial TaxSharing Arrangements Act to the federal government expire on March 31, 1962. It will be a matter for decision on the part of all governments concerned as to what arrangements they wish to have made in this field after that date.
The hon. member certainly does not need to be assured that this federal government will never attempt in any way, shape or form to dictate to the provinces what they shall do in fields of jurisdiction belonging to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance, who described this meeting as constructive, whether the meeting was successful in constructing an agenda for the conference in July, and if it is the intention of the government, as was done by the former administration, to make that agenda public before the meeting.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was asked questions just a few days ago concerning the agenda, and I made an answer at that time. Perhaps it has not come to the attention of the hon. member, but I then indicated that in due course, and in part in the light of the discussions which were held in the continuing committee on Monday and Tuesday of a preparatory nature, communication will be had with the provincial governments in relation to the agenda. There will be no attempt to dictate to any provincial government what shall or shall not go on the agenda; that will be a matter for consultation and general decision.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister's last remark intended to try to repair the obviously deteriorating situation which now prevails as between Ontario and the federal government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This discussion seems to have gone beyond the earnest search for information. I suggest that it be dropped at this point, unless the minister feels there is an inference which has been drawn to which he should reply.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I feel there is a very erroneous and misleading inference in the hon. member's last question. Let me say to him that when he talks about deterioration I think he is drawing on his own imagination. Far from there being any deterioration in relations between the federal and provincial governments, I think they

were never better than they are today. My last answer was given not with a view to repairing anything lacking in those relations but with a view to repairing the faulty knowledge and memory of the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question. Would the minister say that the relations of the federal government with all the provincial governments are better than they have ever been before?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was speaking in general terms-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I think an expression of opinion on that question would be beyond the administrative jurisdiction of the minister and had better not be recorded.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Immigration branch-
50. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,219,129.


The Chairman:: Order. It was agreed we would continue with discussion of item No. 50. This item will be found on page 13 of the blue book, the details on page 134. Shall the item carry?


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on this item the other day I believe some of the remarks which were credited to me were erroneously recorded and the implications drawn from them were not correct; therefore I think I should not leave this particular impression.
We were very critical of the immigration policies as they affect the immigration of Chinese, and of the problems which have developed in the investigations now taking place into this sort of immigration. We were very surprised to note that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate appears to be either in charge of the department here or in very close connection with it. Rather than being chastised by the minister of immigration, I found that this task fell upon the former minister of immigration who proceeded to undertake this duty as either the minister or the ex-minister or the associate minister or whatever he considers himself to be.
Speaking of this, newspapers across the country picked up a chance remark which was made during the speech of another member and attributed it to me. I was reported to have said that the whole Department of Citizenship and Immigration is rotten. This was certainly not my intention. It was not in the context of my remarks. I have an

obligation to make it very clear that I do not consider this to be the case, and never did. I have the highest regard for the civil service in general, and though I am not familiar with most of the people in the civil service who are attached to the Department of Immigration I presume that their honesty and integrity are similar to those in the other branches of the civil service, and beyond reproach.
However, I still consider that the reported infractions of the Immigration Act as they affect Chinese citizens could not have been entirely unknown. We have been told according to newspaper reports that as many as 11,000 Chinese may have come to Canada illegally in the last number of years, and I suggest this is a matter that not only those officials in Hong Kong who are appointed on a part-time basis to carry out investigations and the questioning of applicants must have known about. There must have been officials elsewhere in the department who had some knowledge of irregularities through reports which must have come in continually over the years indicating that irregularities were taking place in the department. If we are to believe or even to suspect that such breaches of the immigration regulations have taken place, we can only come to the conclusion that there have been officials throughout the department who must have known or suspected that all was not as it should be.
I am not alone in drawing this conclusion. We have been told that over the years there have been continual releases of personnel in Hong Kong, particularly in the interpretation and investigation branch where local people were employed, and that from time to time problems were raised. One of the reasons we are so concerned about this matter is that we believe there should be no discrimination with regard to immigration into Canada. We think that the present law as it affects the Chinese people is discriminatory and not in keeping with what the Canadian people believe should be the case in a country free from discrimination, a country which treats people of all races and creeds as being equal.
If these stories are true, in connection particularly with the immigration of Asiatic people, then I think some overhaul of the department is necessary in order to see that these infractions do not take place in the future. This would mean to me that the act itself should be changed so it would not be necessary for these infractions to take place, or so that no encouragement should be given for them to take place.
We are concerned about this matter for another reason. We sat on a committee this year which investigated a situation that involved infractions of rules and regulations,
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration and I believe there have been infractions of these rules and regulations. While the R.C.M.P. have investigated those cases, with only one or two exceptions they have not been able to ascertain who was responsible for the infractions or even the extent of the infractions.
I believe this will be the situation in relation to the department of immigration. It does not seem fair to me that all the Chinese people in Canada should be suspect because there have been infractions of the immigration law. I do not think it is legitimate that a questionnaire should be circulated and that the Chinese people should be asked to make certain commitments and certain statements to the R.C.M.P. or anyone else that would not be asked of people of other nationalities or other new citizens. I think these practices are discriminatory, and I do not believe they should be engaged in. It would seem to me that one should at least be fair to the people who have come here. Most of those who came in, even if they came to this country legally, paid their money and expected that they would be allowed to stay here, and have since tried their best to be good citizens. I believe many of them have been here for some time now, and have proven themselves to be good citizens.
I am not saying anything in the House of Commons, and I do not intend to say anything here, that I would not say any place else. I have been accused recently, as have other members, of doing so. It seems to me a nice way of saying that you are abusing your parliamentary immunity. I do not know what this involves. I am not sure I even know what it is. I have never been shy about voicing my opinions in any place; I think this is a freedom to which Canadians are entitled, but I do not think that should be so here any more than anywhere else. If there is a regulation which gives us some preference I have not used it and do not intend to use it.
I think this matter is so serious that I believe the minister should set up a commission immediately to investigate it. I will talk to the Chinese people with whom I have come into contact about appearing before such a commission if I can assure myself that discrimination will not be used against them and that they can accept the guarantees which are given. To date I agree with the Chinese association in its statement that it will not ask the Chinese people to testify or appear because it does not believe they will be given that immunity which they were promised in such a half hearted way. If immunity is to be granted, let the minister say she will guarantee it and that the government will stand behind it.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
In this country we do not have a fifth amendment. When people testify they do so knowing very well that anything said under oath may be used against them, and unless the minister can take responsibility for allowing this right which is given in one country in particular by the fifth amendment I do not believe these people will come forward to testify. I would be happy to ask those with whom I come into contact to do so, but I will only ask them to appear if they can be reasonably certain that the assurances given by the commission will be sufficient to prevent their deportation and arrest for infractions which have taken place.
We have no objection to those people who are involved paying the full penalty of the law, since presumably they broke it and received remuneration for doing so knowing well, I imagine, what they were doing. But if any immigrants came in on that basis they have a right to protection. If they come forward the minister should be able to solve a problem that has bothered the department for many years. I suggest that an investigation take place in the department. I am sure the minister has nothing to hide. The people should be given immunity so they could come forward and we could clear up the problem. We are a country relatively free of discrimination as to race, colour or creed, and this freedom should apply in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
If the minister sets up a commission I will examine the guarantees given, and if I am satisfied with them I will ask the Chinese people in my constituency and those I know elsewhere to come forward; but I will do so only if I am sure they will not be deported on the basis of their testimony.
Certain people throughout the department must have known about the situation. I condemn them for the stand they have taken. They could have made a report at any time, on which report I am sure the minister would have acted. If we can believe the newspaper reports, they failed to come forward. My condemnation does not apply to the average employee of the department for whom I have the regard I have for most members of the civil service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister wish to say something in reply to the hon. member for Timiskaming?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think it is necessary, because I made a statement last week after the plea was made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. I feel that my statement was comprehensive and well understood.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wanted to embark on a different subject and that is why I thought I

should first give the hon. lady a chance to say anything she had to say at this point.
I wish to speak about the question of the amendment to the act to which the hon. lady referred in her opening statement the other day. As a preface to what I have to say I should like to read from Hansard of April 29, 1955, when I was the minister of this department and my estimates were before the committee of supply. Certain observations were made at that time by the hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister of Canada about the act and the regulations under which the department was then and still is-and I emphasize "still is"-operating, because there has been no change of any substance made, as the hon. lady indicated herself quite clearly in her opening statement.
I do not want to read unnecessary extracts from the debate, so I will start at the end of the first column on page 3320. These are the words of the present Prime Minister then sitting in opposition as the hon. member for Prince Albert:
-I come to the other matters that were being discussed this afternoon, that is the regulations and the application of those regulations by the department. I think however much the minister may endeavour to explain them away, the regulations are unjustifiable in their present' form. They are interpreted according to the whim and caprice of the individual official. They bring about in consequence a denial of fundamental rights. They constitute in fact arbitrary lawlessness.
The Prime Minister went on to say as reported at page 3321:
If that is not done-
That is, some changes made.
-are we going back to the days of the star chamber where appointees of the crown sat, made their decisions and placed themselves above the law? That is my main criticism of the department of immigration today. I do not lay the slightest personal wrongdoing at the feet of the minister. But I do say that the minister, having inherited the department and having had seven or eight months to clear away these wrongs-and they are wrongs-we have a right to ask today, "What have you done? Why have you not acted? What is the reason that equity and law have been pushed aside and the arbitrary say-so of an individual in a department has been placed above the law of the land?"
For three years now the hon. gentleman who described the procedures and regulations of the department in those terms has had the final responsibility for the government of Canada, and no change whatsoever of any consequence has been made in what the Prime Minister when he sat over here described as "arbitrary lawlessness" and said the opposition had a right to ask:
What have you done? Why have you not acted? What is the reason that equity and law have been pushed aside and the arbitrary say-so of an individual in a department has been placed above the law of the land?

Those were serious charges by a very eminent member of the bar of Canada made five years ago, and for three of those five years that hon. gentleman has been Prime Minister of this country and has apparently continued to tolerate this arbitrary lawlessness, as he described it. I did not agree with the hon. gentleman at the time nor do I agree with him now, but that was presumably the view with which he was opposing the government. The hon. gentleman presumably said it with sincerity and meant it. I think we should ask the minister to tell us what arbitrary lawlessness that existed in the department when she became minister has been ended, and how it has been ended, and to described in detail what has been substituted for what the Prime Minister described in these words:
What is the reason that equity and law have been pushed aside and the arbitrary say-so of an individual in a department has been placed above the law of the land?
That is what the Prime Minister said was the state of affairs in the department. The hon. gentleman said that five years ago. It is true that the Prime Minister does not seem to remember this very well, because I have in my hand a document tabled in response to a motion I made for papers.
I read an article in the Toronto Telegram, a newspaper that is not notoriously unfavourable to the present administration. This newspaper published a series of articles by George Brimmell, one of their reporters, who came to see the minister and myself and a number of other people before he wrote the series. In one of the articles which appeared on March 11, 1960 Mr. Brimmell said:
In April, 1955, while he was in opposition, John Diefenbaker accused the immigration department of "arbitrary lawlessness" in its administration. He said the department was tangled in red tape which is "in some cases administered... by sawdust Caesars who believe they are above the law."
I might say that if this is examined in its context-and I have the context here-the hon. gentleman did not in those terms apply it to me although indirectly that application may have been intended. I would think it was rather intended to apply to the officials of the department. Mr. Brimmell's article goes on to state:
Mr. Diefenbaker said then that fundamental rights are denied because unjustifiable regulations were "interpreted according to the whim and caprice of the individual official."
If that was true in 1955, in what way had the situation changed since Mr. Diefenbaker assumed power in 1957?
This was published in a newspaper which I am sure is more friendly to the present government than any other newspaper in
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration this country today, and for good reasons having nothing to do with its being a newspaper.
If that was true in 1955, in what way had the situation changed since Mr. Diefenbaker assumed power in 1957?
This question was put to Mr. Diefenbaker's office by the Telegram.
They drew the Prime Minister's attention to this correspondence, and this was the reply:
A letter from the Prime Minister's executive assistant said that "Mr. Diefenbaker did not recall the specific occasion in question, nor did we have a copy of the clipping readily available for him"-
I make nothing of this. It is in Hansard; there was no question of a clipping. I continue:
"-and under all the circumstances, he felt it better not to comment."
Well, that may have been a very wise view to take. I must say that I put a motion on the order paper to get this correspondence and, because of the technical wording of my motion, I was told there was no such correspondence. I then got in touch with the Prime Minister's executive assistant who explained the circumstances to me-and very reasonably, I think-and gave me the full text of the letter that he in fact wrote to Mr. Brimmell. I would be quite prepared, if there is need to do so, to put the whole letter on the record, but the substance of it is given in the article and I do not think it would serve any particular purpose. I just wanted to be quite sure that I was not in any way being unfair in quoting only part of what appeared in this letter.
Now, my question is this. Does the minister, after two years in her present office, feel that the Prime Minister was right in 1955 when he described this department as being in a state of arbitrary lawlessness, and when he said that "equity and law have been pushed aside and the arbitrary say-so of an individual in a department has been placed above the law of the land"? Does the minister feel that this is the state of affairs that prevails in her department? If she does feel that, what has she done about it; because in so far as the enumeration which the hon. lady gave the other day is concerned, there was really nothing-perhaps to be completely fair I ought to recall what that enumeration was. These were the changes which the hon. lady said had been made since the present government took office. This is to be found at page 4711 of Hansard of June 9, 1960. They are numbered, and read as follows:
1.	One of our first moves after taking office was to change the regulation which had formerly prevented Canadian residents of Asian origin from sponsoring the admission of their spouses and children until they became Canadian citizens.
5004	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
This, it is true, did make it possible for certain persons who had not previously been allowed to apply for their relatives, to apply for them, but it did not change in any way the conditions attendant upon those applications, so that if those applications were decided by arbitrary lawlessness before, this made no difference; it merely provided a few more cases which could be decided by the arbitrary lawlessness. So this could not have removed the arbitrary lawlessness that the Prime Minister was so eloquent about in those days when he occupied a position of irresponsibility, sitting over here on this side of the house.
2.	Next, the immigration appeal board was strengthened and its scope expanded.
Well, I would be quite interested to hear in what way the immigration appeal board, which I set up, has been strengthened. Perhaps when the hon. lady replies she can indicate how it has been strengthened. Has it been strengthened in personnel; has it been given any greater powers than it had before, or has it been given any greater scope? I understand it has been given greater scope. At a later stage I want to ask a few specific questions about that additional scope.
I took the view, when I recommended that the immigration appeal board should be set up, that under the terms of the act there was really nothing that could be adjudicated by a board in the normal sense of the word "adjudication" except with respect to landed immigrants; that landed immigrants, once they were landed, had certain rights in this country and their rights ought to be protected, and should be given the power to appeal where they could be represented by counsel who would be there to protect those rights. I also took the view that persons who were not landed immigrants but who happened to be visitors and were ordered deported, could hardly form a useful subject of any adjudication because there were no rights involved. What was involved was a judgment which this parliament saw fit, when the Immigration Act was last enacted, to impose upon the minister and ultimately upon nobody else. And even though the minister, or I when I was minister, might wish to take away those appeals from the minister altogether we could not have done it because parliament imposed that duty upon us and we had to perform it. We could get someone to assist us and that is what the board, and that is all the board, can do under the law as it now stands.
I am sure the hon. lady will agree with that without any question. So any arbitrary lawlessness that may have existed, to use the words of the Prime Minister, certainly could


not have been taken away by any change in the immigration appeal board, because the immigration appeal board in the past had jurisdiction to hear all the cases of those persons who had rights under the act, and to hear them publicly and with counsel representing them.
The third change the hon. lady referred to was:
3.	A new policy governing temporary residents of Canada was announced in August, 1958 which made it possible to regularize the status of several thousands of persons who had previously entered the country on a non-immigrant basis.
Well, now, lest the hon. lady try to get away with any view that this would take away that arbitrary lawlessness, it was, of course, just another arbitrary regulation, and a regulation which I consistently refused even to consider when I was minister. I am wrong in using the term "regulation"; it was an edict of the hon. lady. It is not a regulation. There is nothing in the regulations to say that after a certain date which escapes me at the moment, I think early in 1959, visitors would not be processed in Canada but would have to go back home and reapply.
That was, in my view, an arbitrary act by the minister. I said so at the time; I condemned it the other day when I was speaking, and I still think it is a very unfortunate policy which ought to be changed. But in no way could it have been said to reduce any arbitrary conduct there may have been in the past. It certainly was an increase of it. I think it was an arbitrary act.
4.	In co-operation with the provinces, significant improvements were made in measures providing for the welfare of immigrants after arrival.
I congratulated the hon. lady when she announced those changes and I am very happy to congratulate her again. This was a policy in which I took a great deal of interest when I was in the department, and my predecessor also took an interest in it. I am very glad the hon. lady has gone on in that direction because I think, speaking generally, the provincial governments, because they are in this business and Canada is not, have much better agencies for looking after welfare, and that it is much better to make arrangements with the provincial governments to have this done wherever it can be done on a satisfactory basis. I think the steps taken by the hon. lady in this field were progressive ones, just as I think those that we took previously also were progressive.
5.	Another important change, which I announced to the house only last month, simplified the arrangements by which residents of Canada may bring fiancees to this country.

Of course that is just an administrative arrangement. There is really no provision for this in the regulations at all. I think what the hon. lady did was a very sensible thing, but it was just another step in the direction of liberalization which has gone on steadily over the period since the Chinese immigration act was repealed in 1946. It had nothing whatever to do with the so-called arbitrary lawlessness to which the Prime Minister referred when he was over here in the speech he made in April, 1955.
I think the time has come when the minister should tell us whether she thinks the Prime Minister was right. Mind you, the Prime Minister was not talking about the minister at that time. I read the paragraph where he said he specifically exempted the minister from any wrongdoing. He was talking about the regulations and about the officials who administer the regulations when he described this situation as a state of arbitrary lawlessness. If it was a state of arbitrary lawlessness in 1955, surely a prime minister who is going to keep us here to consider a bill of rights later this session ought to do something first about rights which five years ago he said were not being respected. I do think we are entitled to know from the minister whether, in the light of experience, she at least thinks the Prime Minister was wrong in what he said in 1955.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, when this
estimate was last before the committee I had spoken for only five minutes when the adjournment hour came. I dealt briefly with the question of the deputy minister taking office, and I said at that time that I was going to direct the attention of the house to a few matters that had been brought to my attention by my constituents in general, by veterans, Legion branches, trade unionists and members of the Chinese community in my constituency. I am going to do so now as briefly as possible.
Before proceeding further I wish to emphasize once again that we believe a great deal of the dissatisfaction with immigration into Canada at the present time arises because we do not have a planned immigration policy. I do not underestimate all the difficulties. I have had a lot to do with immigrants from various countries. I do not underestimate the difficulties at all, but we do suggest that the greater part of our trouble arises from the fact that we have no planned immigration policy.
We in this group believe that immigrants should be processed at their point of origin, and that when it is decided that they are qualified to come forward they should be
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration brought here only when employment and housing are available. As long as we continue this hit-or-miss policy we will find immigrants

and I do not blame the immigrants -taking jobs away from Canadians who are unemployed when the immigrants arrive, or competing with Canadians for housing that is in short supply. We think this is most unfair, particularly to unemployed Canadians, because we believe our first responsibility is to Canadians. While we have an over-all responsibility to accept as many people in Canada as we can properly absorb, our first responsibility is to Canadians and at the present time to the nearly half a million Canadians who are unemployed.
I suppose it is because of the unplanned immigration policy and its effects throughout the years, particularly in recent months in the light of unusually high unemployment, that I have received a number of letters very critical of our immigration policy. The present policy at times creates unnecessary ill will. As I have brought to the attention of the house before, a case came to my notice just a year ago involving a man born in the city of Nelson. He brought up his family there, served and fought for this country for five years, has four children and was unemployed for six months. Day after day he went to the unemployment insurance office seeking work. I do not blame the immigrant in this case, but this is the sort of situation that creates ill will on the part of Canadians and is unfair to the immigrants as well. A job is open and this unemployed Canadian finds it being taken by an immigrant from another country, who arrived two days before.
Therefore I want to emphasize the point of view of this group that we believe there has to be a planned immigration policy to provide for the bringing forward of these people at a time when they can be employed, or can go to relatives who will guarantee to maintain them until they can obtain employment through normal channels, and at such time as they can obtain housing without competing with Canadians for housing which is in short supply in certain areas.
In that connection I want to mention another matter that has been brought to my attention by various unions in my constituency and also by farmers' representatives and others. I refer to the view, in which we in this group believe, that all employment placement should be the responsibility of the national employment service. We do not agree with the division of responsibility for the placing in employment of unemployed persons. The national employment service is there and its officials are trying to do a good job. They are not provided with the facilities
5006	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to travel throughout every district in order to find employment for people from day to day.
I am not blaming the immigration officials for the situation, but it is their responsibility and they work hard at carrying it out. They are instructed to travel throughout their districts in order to secure employment for immigrants who are going to arrive within a few days or a week. Very often the immigration official arrives at a mill, a lumber camp or a mine and finds that there is a job open. As a result an immigrant who has been in Canada only a few days gets the job in the lumber camp, mill or mine while in the same district there are unemployed Canadians, some of them veterans, who in some cases have had their names registered with the national employment service for months.
Therefore I suggest that all employment placement should come under the direction of the national employment service, in fairness to the Canadian unemployed and in fairness to immigrants who often incur unnecessary ill will, which is understandable when citizens who have been unemployed for a number of months find that under their noses someone steps in and takes a job. In fairness to all concerned we think our suggestion should be adopted.
In speaking this morning I am not just giving my own views but am expressing the views of various groups in my constituency, as I have said before. We think a planned immigration policy based on sound principles should give consideration to all citizens within the commonwealth. There is no doubt that at the present time there is gross discrimination against persons coming from certain sections of the commonwealth. While we deny entry to Canada at the present time to a coloured person from another section of the commonwealth who may have fought for freedom against nazism, we allow some nazis of low repute into this country.
I get that information not from trade unions but from persons of German origin who were in Hitler's concentration camps and in a few cases from employees of one or two of Krupp's subsidiaries that are operating in Canada today. We let these people in without any question at all, and to indicate the unfairness of this policy I am going to refer to a matter I brought to the attention of the house on June 26, 1954. Personally I feel very strongly about this question. At that time during the debate on the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration I brought to the minister's attention the fact that five persons had been admitted to Canada who had been sentenced by the French government either to death or to long imprisonment.


The first was found guilty of anti-national actions against France and sentenced in absentia to imprisonment at hard labour for life and to national degradation for life, July 3, 1945, by the court of justice of Agen. The second was sentenced to five years imprisonment and to national degradation for life by the court of justice of Toulouse for collaborationist sentiments. The third was sentenced in absentia to the death penalty and forfeiture of all his property for treason on January 10, 1945, by the court of justice of Toulouse. The fourth was sentenced in absentia by the court of justice of La Haute-Savoie to imprisonment at hard labour for life, national degradation for life and forfeiture of all property, on February 26, 1946, for collaboration with the enemy. The fifth was sentenced on March 28, 1945, in absentia to death as guilty for dealings in time of war with a foreign power with a view to encouraging that power against France. He was an inspector in the Waffen S.S., and that means he was serving the German gestapo very well indeed.
All these men entered Canada under false names, with false passports, and were provided with false visas. I might say that a high French government official stated that they belonged to an organization that murdered the French minister, Georges Mandel, in the forest of Fontainebleau, massacred resistors, and betrayed allied parachutists who were hidden by brave Frenchmen. These parachutists may have included some of our own men.
At that time, I went on to deal with the matter at greater length. I might say the French government of the day requested the government of Canada to deport these people to France. We were supplied with the judgments by representatives of the French government; that is why I have them, and with the evidence. The French government was deeply concerned about this. I can remember reading the evidence in one case, and one of these men who is today a Canadian citizen was found guilty of hanging his brother Frenchman from a hook in a small cell, in the presence of the gestapo, applying a blowtorch and burning his body in various places, in an effort to get him to reveal the identity of other members of the underground.
There was similar evidence with respect to the others. These people were admitted to this country and were granted citizenship at that time. As I said before, these people now have the right to say "I am a Canadian citizen". We in this group protest very strongly indeed against this action on the part

of the Canadian government, because it indicates a type of thinking and discrimination which we feel is totally unjustified and most unfair.
At that time we admitted persons of this type, and there are others like them. I have had correspondence with a very interesting employee of the Krupp interests who gave information about some of these people. I do not question any normal citizen who had to fight for his country. However, we have let a few nazi beauties into this country, yet at the same time we have denied entry to a poor girl like Miss Rebrin, whose case is now before the courts so I am not allowed to say much about it. I have received letters from Francis Noel-Baker and a number of other people pointing out what they consider to be the injustice in this case.
I mention these things to illustrate the unfairness at the present time. I might say these people were admitted at the discretion of the minister of the day, by order in council. These people were considered fit to become Canadian citizens. In fact the minister has the power under section 10 of the Canadian Citizenship Act, which reads:
The minister may. in his discretion, grant a certificate of citizenship to any person who is not a Canadian citizen and who makes application for that purpose and satisfies the court that,
(b) he has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence therein;
(d) he is of good character;
I should like to see how anyone could consider the people I have mentioned to be of good character. I have documentary evidence to support my argument, because at that time the French ambassador supplied us with the information and indicated to us the indignation of the French government of the day.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I mention these matters briefly to indicate the practice of discrimination. I do not say these cases happened under the jurisdiction of the present minister-it was the prior government-but the same principle applies. It is the principle of gross discrimination against citizens of the commonwealth and orientals in general, as well as other good citizens, who are prevented from entering or residing in this country on the basis of very flimsy evidence indeed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman, before he passes on to another topic, would permit me to ask him one question. As I listened to him I gathered that his argument was that there should be no discrimination as between the countries of the commonwealth, from which I think one would 79951-0-316
16, 1960	5007
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration infer that immigrants from the commonwealth would have preference over immigrants from other places. However, the hon. member for Timiskaming said that the principle of his party was that there should be no discrimination regardless of the place from which people come. Which is the policy of his party?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I suspected what the hon. member's question was going to be when he rose. Our policy is the principle nondiscrimination, applied with intelligence and common sense. When you say "non-discrimination", that does not mean you could bring into this country, suddenly, large numbers of persons of other races and other colours and retain the proper economic and social atmosphere. The hon. member knows exactly what we mean. We mean that we are opposed to discrimination in principle. We believe in the government making every effort possible to overcome it. We believe in a common sense approach to the problem, therefore the hon. member knows we would not suggest for a moment that, let us say, five million Asiatics should be admitted to Canada next year, or anything of that sort.


Leon David Crestohl: You preach a perfect paradox.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You believe in non-discriminatory discrimination.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member mentioned the perfect paradox, but I note that he is only the parrot.
I must go on to mention the brief presented by the Chinese benevolent association from its national headquarters, 108 Pender street, Vancouver, British Columbia. I am not going to read this brief. There has been a considerable amount of discussion of this question, and I am not going to be repetitious and restate this case. This brief makes certain representations to the minister with respect to the recent allegations by officials of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I do urge the minister to give serious consideration to these representations. We have not a large representation of Chinese in the district from which I come. I have known the older ones for many years, and I believe there are only 200 or 300 in Kootenay West. They make very good citizens. I have noticed one very interesting aspect of their life, and that is that you never find them applying for government assistance. They always manage to look after themselves or one another.
I do want to read the concluding paragraph of this brief, which has this to say:
Now be it therefore resolved that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be called upon to clarify the position of her department on the recent allegations in the press so that the misleading
5008	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
impression that there is a community-wide conspiracy to land immigrants illegally and use them for slave labour may be corrected or clarified.
The minister has taken some steps in that direction, but I hope she makes it even more definitive before this debate is concluded. The brief goes on to say:
Furthermore, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be requested to humanize the immigration laws and regulations and to remove all existing discriminations against Chinese and orientals.
I do urge the minister and the government to give serious consideration to the representations of this group, and to make those representations applicable as far as possible.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Would the hon. member say what is the date of the document he was reading?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: June 3, 1960.


Mr. McDonald (Hamilton South):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Robert Matthew Turnbull McDonald: When he referred to some five million orientals coming into the country, is it the policy of his party to have a quota system set up for every country which sends emigrants to Canada?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, I do not think I should say we believe in a quota system. We believe in a common sense approach based on the principle of non-discrimination, which would bring representatives of various races into this country so they can be properly absorbed as far as the orderly development of the nation is concerned, and obtain the necessary housing without displacing Canadians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit another question? I have always considered that he was one member of this house who was singularly free of cant and hypocrisy, and I say that as a compliment to him. I think it would be very helpful to all of us to know what the hon. gentleman really means by non-discrimination.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman has asked me to describe what I mean by nondiscrimination, or what we mean by it. When we say we believe in non-discrimination, we approach this problem from a Christian point of view. We believe in the brotherhood of man and the applying of that principle to the limit of our ability considering all the circumstances concerned. I hope the hon. gentleman does not consider that a hypocritical answer.


Leon David Crestohl: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question? Would he consider that was non-discrimination with strings or without strings?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We do not believe in strings of any kind. We call this non-discrimination with common sense, as I said before.
Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter I wish to bring to the attention of the committee and that is the question of landed immigrants, which has been raised several times before by hon. members of all parties. I am referring to how people from the United States come to this country and register as landed immigrants but have no intention of staying here. This happens mostly with construction workers, people who work on pipe lines and things like that. As a matter of fact I saw in the newspapers recently that the foreman of the crew putting in the gas pipe line to serve the restaurant and cafeteria of this House of Commons is a United States citizen. I thought that was most interesting, but I presume there is not a single man unemployed and available in Canada who could do that job and that is the reason this man is here. I am sure the minister will be able to give us that assurance when she speaks in reply.
We can all understand the case of a genuine landed immigrant, but in my constituency these United States citizens come to Canada as landed immigrants and therefore have a right to get employment as such. They work here for three or four months and then they go back again. What can we do about that? I think that is a question which has to be given consideration in fairness to Canadian citizens. This landed immigrant business has been worked to the limit in some places, with hundreds and hundreds of them coming across the line.
Mr. Chairman, let me tell you how I proved this on one occasion. In British Columbia if you are going to become a landed immigrant you are required to take out a licence for your car; if you are only a visitor you get a visitor's permit and are not required to take out a licence for some months. I asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to check up on some of these landed immigrants; not one of them had taken out a Canadian licence but all had visitors' permits. I think that is a section of the act which does want redrafting and drawing much tighter than it is now, in fairness to all Canadians.
In conclusion let me say that the members of this group realize the necessity for a complete revision of the Immigration Act. We realize that this is no light task and that there are many angles to be considered. I do not suppose there are many acts which present as many problems in drafting as a revised Immigration Act, and I well recognize that. But I think it is essential-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to interrupt his comments

here. What he says is perfectly true, and that is precisely why we have not been able to bring in any amendment to the act before now, because I do not want to bring in a half-baked piece of legislation which will not stand the test of time. That is precisely the reason there has not been any revision before now.


Leon David Crestohl: That is the first time we have heard that explanation, and that is quite understandable.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I can well appreciate the minister's explanation. Personally I would prefer to see a little more time taken so we will have a document which is as foolproof as possible presented to this house. I recognize the quite unusual difficulties in drafting an act of this kind, but again I say it is necessary to have a completely revised Immigration Act if we are going to have a sound and just immigration policy based on definitive principles.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, since last week when we were discussing these estimates I have had occasion to submit some questions to the minister, and I want to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate her department and her officials for the speed and accuracy with which some rather complicated questions were so efficiently dealt. I must confess that I did not expect a reply to be given within 24 or 48 hours, but I was delighted to see that the department's records are so well and accurately kept and I was pleased they were made available to me so quickly.
At the same time I would like to say that I was pleased to see from these replies that no deportations were ordered to iron curtain countries or to African countries. It certainly does disclose the attitude of the immigration department in safeguarding human lives, and I think there is no other department which has such humanised laws. The hon. member who has just taken his seat also used that term.
I would like to touch on the same subject matter the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate touched on when he spoke of the facilities which should be given to people who are deported and wish to take their cases before the courts. I would refer, as did the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, to statements made on previous occasions by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice. They argued very logically, forcefully and humanly when they were sitting on this side of the house that people should be told what they are accused of or what they are convicted of, virtually, when they are ordered to be deported and they are not now given the reason.
79951-0-3161
16, 1960	5009
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I do not know whether there is a difference in that regard between landed and non-landed immigrants, but I want to refer to a statement made by the present Minister of Justice on August 7, 1956, when he was sitting in opposition. I have not the full quotation from Hansard because I will only read that part which I think is applicable. As reported on page 7162 of Hansard for August 7, 1956, he said:
I refer, of course, particularly to the refusal of the department to inform prospective immigrants who are rejected of the reasons for their rejection, which practice is carried over in a number of cases to a refusal to inform people who land in Canada and against whom orders for deportation are made of the reasons for those orders. We have said before and we say again that this practice is absolutely unjustified and that it is contrary to the principle of justice upon which this country's system rests.
The Minister of Justice straightforwardly and, I was about to say, very nobly, declared that to place an immigrant in a position where he is virtually convicted, the sentence being to leave the country, without being given the reason is to do something which militates against decency and good judgment. It is possible that this may have been necessary during time of war in order to preserve Canadian security. It may be that this practice was determined during the last war, or at the end of the war. I do not know; but surely at the present time it is no longer necessary.
That is another reason why the minister should give active consideration to revising the act, and I say revising rather than amending because the minister told us a few minutes ago why it would be difficult to amend the act. I point out to her that the act was last revised in 1953, at which time some basic changes were made. I think the time has now come when she should accelerate the attention she is giving to the complete revision of the measure.
I do not know whether parliament gets the full facts when decisions or rulings are made by regulation or order in council. Members of this house do not have placed before them the regulation which decides or the rule which modifies the conditions under which an immigrant can enter the country. When I asked in my question the other day for departmental decisions as to cases, I was not concerned with the departmental decision on any particular case. It seemed to me that a decision is made in one case and that in the course of time it determines other cases as well; it becomes a standard.
I was not pinpointing any particular case. I was asking if there were departmental decisions of this type. If I am not correct about that-and the minister has indicated that I
5010	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration might be in error-then I should like the position to be made clear. Those are the type of departmental decisions that I mean. I do not even know that any exist, but I want to make sure whether there are any which are being used as standards affecting immigration into this country.
Let us take, for example, the statement the minister made on August 23, 1958 with respect to people who were in Canada as non-immigrants, and who were here for six months or a year. The minister wisely and humanely decided to let those people apply. I do not know whether that decision was made by order in council or by the minister herself. The first time we heard about it was when the minister announced it.
Take the announcement made by the minister recently with respect to fiancees. Was that done by order in council or was it a decision of the minister or a decision of the department to give some relief in this direction? I am not criticizing that decision. On the contrary, I praise it; but I am wondering why decisions of that kind are not placed before parliament for approval or rejection or amendment.
That is why I have asked so many questions on these matters. We do know that cases where the circumstances appear to be identical are, on occasion, decided differently with the result that people are left wondering. There may, of course, be circumstances on the files which are not disclosed but which would explain the difference in the decisions, but I think these circumstances should be disclosed in order to avoid any misunderstanding or even harsh thoughts about what has happened. People are human. They may inadvertently have some unkind thoughts when they see two cases where the circumstances appear to be identical decided in different ways.
I present these thoughts to the minister not with a view to being critical but in order to let the department know what members of parliament think about certain situations. We realize that this is a department which is very difficult to administer, and I have said at almost every opportunity how grateful I am to the department for being so understanding from time to time, and I say now that we are getting some fast and considerate service.
I want to say a word of commendation also to the parliamentary secretary to the minister. Some weeks ago I brought a simple matter to his attention, a matter which required an immediate reply. I did not want to burden the officials or the minister with it, but I did trouble the parliamentary secretary and he gave attention to it very


promptly. I certainly want to express my gratitude for that. I feel that this is the time for it, and that it is also the time to be critical.
I can only underscore my sincere plea to the minister that she could do this country no better service than to see that the act is revised and made uniform; that it be consolidated, together with all the orders in council, in order that it may be not only a clear-cut statement of policy but also a clear guide to just who is and who is not admissible to this country. These things should not be left to orders in council or ministerial decisions or entirely to the discretion of the inquiry officer.
I know there must be some discretion given to these men and that they exercise it well, but such discretion is dangerous if one makes it final. We do not know what mood a particular official may be in. He may be distressed by domestic problems when he makes a decision. His decision has to be respected, but all I ask is that we do not allow it to be final as if it were a decision of the supreme court. We should allow facilities for review. It seems to me that when it is referred to a board of appeal this again is a departmental board, and there may be some concern for the position of an inquiry officer who is, after all, a colleague. There might be some uncontrollable influences involved of an intangible nature. If a man feels aggrieved and wants to take the matter to the courts he should be allowed to do so.
I urge the minister to take another look at section 39. I do not suggest that the bill standing in my name that seeks to amend section 39 is a panacea or cure-all, and I am prepared to withdraw it at any time or to agree to let the minister draft one in her own name or to convert and adapt mine and make it her own bill. I do not seek kudos for the bill. I am only eager to see that every immigrant, whether landed or not, is given justice and has his day in court. I think the act as it stands is in need of revision but would serve as an excellent foundation for a new act. If reviewed, amended and revised I do not think there would be an immigration act in the world capable of surpassing it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could make a few general comments on the remarks, suggestions and criticisms of the hon. member for Cartier. First of all I should like to assure him that the decisions which are made in individual cases, to which he has referred, are not used as rulings by the department, simply because no two cases are ever exactly alike. It is true that from time to time people ask, "Why were

my relatives not admitted when this group are over here in exactly the same circumstances?" They are not in exactly the same circumstances. We find that time after time. So long as the minister is charged with exercising discretion then I must do that.
I agree with the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate that, if parliament wished to take away from the minister the discretionary power, it would certainly lighten my task very considerably. I would no longer be able to admit anyone by order in council. I am not sure that is what the hon. member for Cartier wants. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate just made a plea for more use of orders in council and the hon. member for Cartier says we should have less, that the act itself should stipulate who can or cannot enter the country and we should adhere rigidly to those classification. I am unable to agree with the hon. gentleman on that point. I believe there must be flexibility even though it makes the job of the minister more onerous.
The hon. member referred specifically to the statement I made in the house in August, 1958 and also to the one I made a few days ago with reference to fiancees. The very reason these statements were made in this chamber was to permit hon. members to comment on them, to disagree with them if they wish, and in neither case was there any noticeable disagreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, would the hon. lady not agree-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I hasten to assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that I was just about to qualify that statement. As the hon. gentleman was probably just about to say, he did have some comments to make with reference to the policy announced in August of 1958, but I think he would agree with me that there was not a prolonged debate nor was there a great amount of objection raised in either of these instances.
But that is not the point I wanted to make. The point is that the house was informed of the changes. The information was brought forward and presented to hon. members for their approval or disapproval as the case may be. I think it could scarcely be expected that every change in the regulations and every administrative ruling should be submitted to parliament for debate. They would be held in abeyance for many months if that were done, and it would be tantamount to amending the regulations or the act as the case may be.
With respect to a revision of the act, I possibly have been guilty of some loose expressions referring to amendment when I
16,	1960	SOU
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration meant revision, or referring to revision when I meant amendment, but I hope hon. members will forgive me. What we do propose is a revision of the act. Quite apart from any alterations which may be made with respect to admissible groups we feel that the present act has probably had a few patches put on it here and there and is no longer as understandable a document as it might be. It is seven years old, as the hon. member has said, and I would hope to put it into a little more lucid form so there will not be the misunderstandings that have occurred in the past.
I can assure hon. members that as soon as the department and the government are ready with a revision of the act, ample opportunity will be given to all hon. members to voice their approval or disapproval and to make suggestions. It is my intention to make the draft act available not only to hon. members of the committee for their consideration but also to members of interested groups, including the voluntary agencies which work so closely with the department in the encouragement and care of new residents coming into Canada and also the various church groups, labour groups and others who are interested. I hope that all will have an opportunity to express their views.
I might say that the views expressed by these organizations in the past, sometimes in a formal way and sometimes by letters and resolutions, have been carefully considered and will continue to be given close attention regardless of the source from which they come. We do not pass lightly over or toss aside expressions of opinion; they are given careful consideration indeed. That may assist in explaining why the introduction of the revision has taken so long. I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that this is a matter that should not be hurried just for the sake of bringing in a new act, much as I should have liked to introduce it before now. I believe it is better to take time and make sure that the opinions of all have been carefully considered. In this way we will finally have a workable piece of legislation, one that will meet the approval of all groups of Canadians who have an interest in this department of government.
I had not intended to devote this time to answering specific questions that were raised, but I thought these few comments would be of interest to hon. members of the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
5012	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 50 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. The hon. lady had the floor at one o'clock and said there were several specific points she intended to answer. Does she wish to do that now?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I had not intended specifically to answer the individual points, because we will be coming back to them later and I did not wish to have the same questions coming up and repeated, so it might be just as well if I answered them all at the one time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well. I want to make a few observations of a more or less general character. I noticed that just before one o'clock the hon. lady said it was her intention, when she had a draft bill-I am not sure whether she said a draft bill or a draft act; I do not think it makes any difference-to consult organizations, groups interested in immigration, and also to make it available to members of the house. I assume what the hon. lady would do is what is often done in the case of major revisions of legislation and what, I may say parenthetically, I hope this government, if it is going to act responsibly, is going to do about the Civil Service Act; that is to give it first reading in one session and leave it until another session so there is adequate opportunity for the public to consider it. If before the end of this session the hon. lady could give first reading to her bill it seems to me this would be an admirable way to expedite its passage in another session. If it could be brought in with the understanding that it would get no more than first reading, so it would be published, then it seems to me there would be a good opportunity during the recess to have everyone interested look at it. Then when the new bill was introduced in another session, as was done with the Income Tax Act and innumerable statutes, a lot more progress would be made, because many of the representations would be known. I just offer that as a suggestion.
Since we met last week I have been thinking about something that I spoke about somewhat tentatively at that time, and that is this very awkward problem of dealing with visitors who have been ordered deported. I listened with the respect that I always accord to the hon. member for Cartier when he spoke this morning, because the hon. member has had perhaps as much experience with the problems of immigrants and would-be immigrants as any hon. member in this house. There is no member who is more genuinely


which were made upon me every year I was minister, that I was not bringing enough people into this country; that it was not being populated. When you look at the record, sir, you see what has happened.
I venture to say the indications are that immigration in the year 1960 will be no greater than it was in 1959, despite the Prime Minister's generous offer in London a short time ago that tens of thousands of immigrants would be welcomed to this country and there would be no trouble in finding jobs for them. I do say that I hope, before too many of the tens of thousands of job-seekers come to this country under any immigration policy, the minister will see that her colleague the Minister of Labour first tells those Canadians who are looking for jobs where the jobs are and gives them a chance to take them; because, as has been repeatedly pointed out from this side of the chamber, many of these job opportunities to which reference has been made are in categories that many a Canadian would be very happy to fill if he were given the opportunity.
Now, sir, I want to repeat that I do believe, after three years of Progressive Conservative government, which was going to end the arbitrary lawlessness-those are the words the Prime Minister used-in this department, and which has so far made no substantial change in the act or regulations, we should be told either that the government has come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about five years ago, and that the Minister of Justice did not know what he was talking about four or five years ago, or we should be told why the government has not done anything about it in three years.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall be glad to tell the hon. member a few things. He had something to say a moment ago about the number of immigrants who came into Canada in 1959 as compared with 1957. I draw to the hon. member's attention something he has probably forgotten, that his administration ended after five months of 1957-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Six months, all but nine
days.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, five months and ten days.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, June 21.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In any event, I do not believe he can lay claim to having brought into Canada the largest number of immigrants in any year since 1913, nor can he say that the number who came in 1957 were the normal number. If my memory serves me well I think the average over a 10-year

period was something in the nature of 155,000. Now, as the hon. member well knows, when you bring in a great many more than your normal number it takes a little while to digest them. In addition to that, the motives which impelled these people to come here in any given year are something which only the immigrant himself understands. I think it is safe to say that a great many people came into Canada in 1957 for various reasons who possibly might have planned to come in 1958 or in 1959. However, there were reasons why they hurried and came a little sooner than they otherwise intended to. I believe that happens at any time. It is not a situation that is applicable only to the year 1957.
Then it takes a while for these people to be digested, shall we say, into the economy of the country. Probably some of them are not digested even yet. I disagree with the hon. member in his prognostication for the current year. It is a little early to say precisely what will happen; however, I think last year was the low year. I agree that Canada could absorb these people. I just wonder what the hon. member means. In one breath he says we have not enough immigration, that this is the lowest ebb we have reached and we should be having 280,000 per year, the same as in 1957-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I know the hon. lady does not want to misrepresent me. I did not say we are not having enough immigrants. I think we are bringing in all the immigrants that we can digest, so long as we have a depressed economy such as we have had for most of the last three years.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am glad the hon. member finally made himself clear, because he left the impression that he was criticizing this government for not bringing in the number of immigrants that we had under the previous administration. In the next breath he says we should not bring them in so long as we have unemployment. I believe you have to make up your mind which of these two points of view you want to adopt.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I made that very clear the other day.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like also to reply to the criticism the hon. member levelled at the Prime Minister this morning. I draw to his attention the fact that the remarks of the Prime Minister which the hon. member quoted were made in April, 1955. At that time we had no immigration appeal board; there was no such thing. I submit that, largely because of the criticisms levelled by the Prime Minister and the present Minister of Justice, the hon. member did, 79951-0-317
16. 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in his capacity as minister at that time, institute the appeal board in the following year, 1956.
I draw to his attention also the fact that even when he did set up this board it had no power whatever to deal with other than landed immigrants. When this government came into power one of the first things it did, after careful consideration, was to extend the scope of that board, as I announced in this house last year, so that anyone who was in Canada, whether landed immigrant or non-immigrant, could appeal to that board.
The way the matter stands now, regardless of the status of the individual he has recourse to the immigration appeal board. I would be the last person to say that I feel this is the final, ultimately desirable situation. We are still watching it and we are watching it very closely. I think there will be other alterations made. I do not know what they will be at this moment, and I do not want to anticipate a new act or the prov-sions of that act. The hon. member has asked me if I could give an indication of the suggestions I propose to make. I am sorry, but I must answer that in the negative; because until such time as-the hon. member shakes his head, and I am sorry if I misunderstood him-we have agreement amongst the various departments of government concerned, and until we know what the provisions of the act are going to be- until we are reasonably sure that what we propose is going to be a workable arrangement-I think it would be wrong for me to anticipate the introduction of any of the controversial points.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not quarrel with that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I had intended to give some further information with regard to the immigration appeal board. Possibly I should point out to the committee that since the scope of the board was broadened the number of appeals to that board has doubled. The number of appeals from October 1, 1959 to date has doubled as compared with the number which were heard by the board under the former, more restrictive rules. I think, Mr. Chairman, this is an indication of the interest there is and the fact that those who previously had no recourse to any kind of tribunal now can come forward and make their voices heard before that board.
I might go further and say that at the time I made this announcement there was some critical comment in some sections of the press, which accused the minister of attempting to evade some of her duties. Let me point out now, as I did at that time, that such is
5016	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration not the case. Even after these people have been heard by the immigration appeal board they still have the same recourse to the minister which they had previously.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I could for one moment reply to the point raised; I will not say anything new. The minister said that the immigration of 1957 was not normal. The hon. member for Kootenay West said that we never had normal immigration, but I do not know what normal is.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Let us say average.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. lady says 150,000 a year, she has been about two thirds right for the last two years, accepting her definition of normal. As for the suggestion that because the present government came into office on June 21, 1957 and the decision they made was to stop all open placement immigration from that time on, they can claim even the faintest kind of credit for any of the immigration in that year is really so preposterous that I would not have thought so intelligent a person as the minister would have considered making such a claim.
When I was speaking the other day I said I thought that as long as we had the large scale unemployment which we unfortunately seem to be having now, in summer as well as winter, I did not think there should be any open placement immigration. I want to make that clear at once. The surest way to kill immigration altogether is to bring to this country by false advertising people who have no connection with it, and have them walk the streets for months looking for jobs, or have them lose a job or get a substandard job; then three months later they go home again and advertise what a poor country this is. The worst blow to desirable immigration in this country for years and years, in my opinion, was the way the Arrow contract was ended, with the consequences that had on our British immigration. The minister knows what I am talking about here.
But what I actually said was that this was so different from the advertisements. We were castigated over and over again. It was the Liberal view, and it is the Liberal view today, that immigration should be geared to the absorptive capacity of the country. We were told by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister that our immigration was far too low. In fact the Prime Minister got the figure up in the exuberance of the election campaign of 1957, less than six weeks before the government stopped all open placement immigration. He told a very select organization in Ontario that immigration should be 600,000 a year; at least that


is what it worked out to. He said an increase of 4 per cent a year. It was the extraordinary difference between what members of the Progressive Conservative opposition said on immigration and the practice since that I was drawing to the attention of the committee. The fact that I draw to the attention of the committee the contradictions of hon. members opposite does not mean that I share their views, because in most cases I do not.
The hon. lady said the immigration appeal board had not been established in 1955 when the criticism was made by the Prime Minister, and that is quite right. But I also point out to the hon. lady that of the cases to which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice referred, I cannot remember one single case of a landed immigrant, although there may have been the odd one. I think they were all cases of persons who had never been accepted qs immigrants, which was the cause of this charge of lawlessness. I have never for one moment contested the fact that a person who was a landed immigrant had rights. I always said that; but no distinction was made, as the quotation I read from the Minister of Justice shows quite clearly.
It is true that the immigration appeal board now hears appeals by visitors, but I have no idea on what basis they do that, and I would be interested to hear the hon. lady tell us on what basis they hear those appeals. I do not mean that there is an order in council empowering them to do that, but I would like to know what criterion they use and how they go about it. It does not seem to me that there is any law upon which they can determine a case; they must merely act as a substitute or a screen for the minister.
I have no objection to that. I think the minister was very wise, and perhaps I might have saved myself a little agony if I had done that, too. But it seemed to me, and it seems to me still, that it was rather difficult to give a tribunal the capacity to decide something when it had no law on which to make the decision. In the case of a landed immigrant we know that the reason for deportation has to be precisely stated, under what section of the act it comes and what the circumstances are. But in the case of visitors all that is said is that they are not suitable, and that is all that under the law can be said unless you want to say that they are in one of the prohibited classes. I think the minister will agree, considering what the prohibited classes are, that that is casting a very severe reflection upon an applicant, and one would want to be sure one was right before making such reflections.
Therefore I would be interested to know on what basis the decisions are made and what criterion is used by the board in dealing

with the applications of visitors. It seems to me that is the only point that has not been dealt with by the minister which requires any further clarification.


Mr. Van Horne:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on this hocus-pocus of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Here is a minister of immigration of a former government, in the dying days of the Liberal party, now dead. I would like to say that as far as the people of Canada are concerned they certainly appreciate the attitude of this government in doing away with hocus-pocus in the immigration department of the sort of which we had an example this afternoon. I can very well remember the present Prime Minister in the 1957 and 1958 election campaigns making it very clear that no country had more sympathy than Canada for people who wished to come here when it was not wise to bring people here for whom jobs were not available and while this country could not absorb them. Do not forget that they were the days of the Liberal party when unemployment was at a peak.
I suggest that if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had spent as much effort, when his government approved the St. Lawrence seaway, in getting them to approve and build the Chignecto canal, he would not be called a renegade in the maritime provinces today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the hon. member who has just sat down has said, perhaps the minister will enlighten me on one point before this item passes. In April, 1957, when the Prime Minister was speaking about accelerating immigration, he laid down as a desirable yardstick 4 per cent per year of the population, which at that date would have meant 640,000 immigrants per year, although the population is now higher. Is that still the yardstick for the government?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As I said in my opening statement, we think, very much in common with some members of the opposition, that Canada should bring in immigrants according to the absorptive capacity of our country. I do not think you can set any percentage figure at all. I have not the Prime Minister's remarks on that occasion before me, and I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition has them-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I have.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -but if my memory serves me well he was talking in general terms over a long range period, and relating it to prognostications of population which I believe were gleaned from one of the royal commission reports. This is just my memory of 79951-0-3171
16, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the matter, and I should not really comment when I am so vague as to the origin, but I can assure the Leader of the Opposition it was not a specific statement having regard to each and every year taken in the long run.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My memory has been reinforced by an account of the Prime Minister's speech which I have before me from the Globe and Mail, Toronto, April 27, 1957. There was no doubt the Prime Minister was relating our experience to that of Australia. He said Australian experience over the years had shown them they could absorb 4 per cent per year and Canada could do so also; that that was a good yardstick. I take it from the minister that this 4 per cent has now gone the way of the 15 per cent.


Hubert Badanai: My honourable and distinguished friend from Bonavista-Twillingate has, I am afraid, covered the subject on which I had intended to speak. However, there is a situation which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister based upon the statement the hon. lady made in her opening remarks on June 9, as reported in Hansard of that date at page 4711. 1 quote:
A new policy governing temporary residents of Canada was announced in August, 1958 which made it possible to regularize the status of several thousands of persons who had previously entered the country on a non-immigrant basis.
This statement of policy seems to be in contradiction to the experience of a young woman who came to Canada on a visitor's visa and who, while she was here, met an eligible bachelor, a fine young man, who fell in love with her and proposed marriage. The first intimation I had of this romance came to me in a letter from Rev. L. Mulder, pastor of the Christian Reformed church, which I shall read for the information of the committee. It is addressed to me:
One of our eligible bachelors in our congregation has a problem, and after hearing about it I promised to write you about it.
Four months ago a girl came from Holland on a visitor's visa to visit relatives in the lakehead. She realized that she could not make the decision to stay here if she wanted to. Bachelor began to see the girl and they now have firm plans to get married next spring. The boy is about 30, the girl 25 years of age. They went to the immigration here to ask permission for the girl to stay here. No sir, law was law. Even if they were going to get married next spring-
This, by the way, was last August.
[DOT]-the girl first has to make the journey back to Holland and then immigrate properly. This involves extra money for nothing the couple argues, but to no avail, the immigration does not budge. Is there any appeal possible as far as you know, or is it better not to make any fuss and make a round trip to Holland?
Could you please let us know the best plan of campaign?
The young gent is not yet a Canadian citizen; does that make any difference?

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I immediately took up this matter with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. She in turn asked her private secretary to look into the matter. In due course I received a reply, which I am going to read; it is addressed to me:
This Is with reference to Miss Hoey's letter of September 9, 1959, concerning Miss Antje Bolt of Holland who desires to remain in Canada permanently.
According to a report received from the immigration officials in Fort William, this young lady entered Canada as a visitor on April 1, 1959. She has made inquiries regarding the possibility of being allowed to remain in Canada and the Fort William officials have explained the situation to her.
X would refer you to a statement made by my minister in the house on August 23, 1958, in connection with immigration procedure in dealing with non-immigrants. A person who applies at a visa office for temporary admission to Canada is required to sign a statement to the effect he understands he is being allowed to enter Canada on a temporary basis only and will effect departure from Canada on or before the expiration of the period of authorized temporary stay. He further signifies that he will not apply to remain in Canada permanently and that he understands failure to leave voluntarily in accordance with the undertaking renders him liable to deportation. May I point out that Miss Bolt signed the non-immigrant undertaking at the visa office in The Hague prior to coming to Canada.
It is the policy of this department to discourage non-immigrants who arrive in this country after August 31, 1958, from applying for landing. As a consequence it is, therefore, not possible to take favourable action on behalf of Miss Bolt. I can only suggest that on her return to Holland a formal application for her admission be filed by her fiance at the Fort William office or she make application on her own at The Hague office.
I realize that this advice comes as a disappointment to the parties concerned but I am sure you will understand the department would not be justified, in fairness to other cases, in making an exception in this particular instance.
That is where the matter ended. I deplore very much indeed this lack of appreciation for love and romance on the part of some members of the department who should have given special consideration to this case at once, particularly as the department is presided over by a charming lady such as we have in the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Leaving the spirit of romance aside, the very principle enunciated by the minister in the statement which I read a minute ago, if it is a statement which has any validity at all, should certainly have applied to this girl.
I should like a statement from the minister with regard to this particular case and similar cases, of which there must be a considerable number in the country. It appears to me that when a couple meet in Canada and one of the parties concerned is only here on a temporary basis, he or she should be considered for permanent admission. They should be allowed to get married and have children and populate the country, which would be far

more desirable in the long run; that is, to have many children to populate the country as we want it to be populated.
The minister has already indicated that amendments to the act will not be forthcoming during this session. I do not fully agree with all the statements made by my distinguished colleague, the former minister of citizenship and immigration, though I have great respect for his good judgment. There are also certain aspects of the statements which were made by the late Mr. Mackenzie King about which I have some reservations. I would not wish to enter into that matter now, because I am waiting for the government to bring in the amendments to the Immigration Act. That will be the appropriate time for me and others to enter into a discussion of what will be best for Canada.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I want to set the hon. member's mind at rest. I can assure him that the course of true love is constantly being smoothed for a great many couples by this department. I do not know the extension of stay; perhaps it was for a year or more. We usually have young people say they intend to marry and they give a specific period of time, say three or four months or something like that. We extend the visit to take care of that intention, and then if the young couple marry we of course would not separate husband and wife. We would certainly land the new spouse. But that is not always the case. Many young people say they have fallen in love and intend to marry, but then when landed they decide the love was not quite as true as they thought. I recall one case in which one man managed to bring in seven or eight different fiancees, until the department finally decided that this was scarcely a true indication of his intentions.
I can assure the hon. member that although all these cases have to be viewed on an individual basis, we do what we can to assist them. I do not know what the final outcome of this particular case was, whether or not the young lady went back to Holland. If she had given a definite or even an approximate date which had not been too far in the future, and had asked for an extension, she certainly would have been given an extension of her visitor's visa.


Hubert Badanai: Will the minister allow me one question? Has there been a case of a couple marrying prior to asking permission to remain, and have they received that permission?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The young lady would
have to undergo health examinations, of course. This opens up a field with very broad ramifications. We do not separate families. Even if she had not complied strictly with



I960

[Stage Direction]
the immigration regulations we would have advised her as to how she should conduct herself in order to remain in Canada with her husband.
Lester Bowles Pearson: In other words, what is required is to prove your matrimonial intentions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have three or four questions I should like to ask at once, and then the minister could answer them all. I do not intend to make any more speeches, but I should like to bring to the minister's attention a case that has interested me. I do not like to enter into a discussion of individual cases, and unless the minister wants me to I will not mention the name in this file. I know the minister has received many representations with respect to this case. The only ground on which the case was turned down was that the person being applied for was a half sister instead of a full sister of the person applying. I do not know what the legal advisers of the department would say about whether a half sister is a sister within the meaning of the regulations.
I know what I would have done with this case if it had not been within the regulations. I would have submitted it to the governor in council for approval on the basis of the facts I have. I admit that it is not always possible to have all the facts in these cases. There may be some other reason that has not been given. On the face of it, and based on such information as I have available to me, this person was otherwise eligible except for this particular circumstance. The person had come here as a visitor, as people sometimes do from countries behind the iron curtain because it is easier to come as a visitor than as a immigrant, and subsequently wished to change status. This happened after that regrettable administrative decision of 1958.
I think the minister made an awful mistake when she said earlier, especially in my hearing, that because I categorically objected only once to that statement of policy in 1958 there was very little opposition to it. If I have to repeat my objections one hundred times in order to convince the minister that I am utterly opposed to it I shall attempt to do so, but I hope she will take it that I have repeated my objection a hundred times.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, I am convinced.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that regulation which forces people who are already in this country to go home and then apply-the people being otherwise eligible-is stupid and inhuman and should not be carried on one day longer. If I can make my views on that subject any more emphatic I should like to do so. I think that in marginal cases like the one I am referring to now, of a
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration half sister, if that is the only objection it should not be considered an objection at all in sponsored cases.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is not, either, Mr. Chairman. We have made no difference at all between half sisters and sisters. If the person were otherwise admissible the fact that she was a half sister would not bar her from entry to the country. If she has been refused entry I should think there would have been other circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not intend to go over the file here in the committee, because in my opinion that would be an abuse. I will let the minister have another look at it privately.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We definitely do let in half sisters the same as sisters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have another question to pursue. I asked the Prime Minister one day just at the time the Prime Minister of Japan was here whether there had been any discussion about a revival of the gentleman's agreement, or any change in the conditions of admission of would-be Japanese immigrants. The minister perhaps saw or had drawn to her attention a letter written by the Japanese ambassador which appeared in the New Canadian of February 6, 1960. I referred to that in the house at the time. The Japanese ambassador said in his letter:
During the recent visit to Ottawa of Prime Minister Kishi, the question of immigration was discussed with Canadian government leaders.
In dealing with the matter in the house the Prime Minister stated, as reported at page 258 of Hansard of January 25, 1960:
I speak from memory but X do not think there was any consideration given or any discussion of that subject.
I should point out that I was being much more specific on that occasion. I referred then to the pre-war agreement. We also know there was some talk about admitting some Japanese to the province of Saskatchewan to aid in the establishment of an industry there. If there is anything new at all about immigration from Japan I think the minister should tell us about it.
The hon. lady should also tell us whether there have been any developments with respect to the admission of immigrants from the British West Indies. The minister will recall that I said on one or two occasions, both when I was minister and since, that it would have been my intention, had I remained in the government, to recommend to my colleagues the establishment of a regime for the British West Indies similar to that which exists in respect to India, Pakistan and Ceylon; namely, to establish some kind of quota by agreement with the federation.
5020	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I did not think that was practical before the federation was founded. As a matter of fact I had a secret aspiration to go there as a representative of the Canadian government on the occasion the federation was established, but it was another minister of citizenship and immigration who went instead. I would have hoped that this visit would melt the heart of the hon. lady and make her realize that an improved regime should be introduced which would meet this peculiarly difficult situation. It is a difficult situation, and I do not pretend it is not.
I wish also to make a request of the government concerning the residual health and welfare care of refugees who are privately sponsored. I still think that if in this world refugee year we are to play a part at all commensurate with the capacity of this country, the present serious difficulty should be overcome and could be overcome by the government at very little cost to the Canadian taxpayers.
There is one other matter I do want to bring to the minister's attention. The minister may know something about the Canadian-British education committee. I do not know whether she does. If she does not, I do know that some of her officials know something about it. This is an organization which exists in London for the purpose of promoting the attendance at Canadian universities of school boys, matriculants, from the schools of the United Kingdom. It is not an immigration scheme at all; but it does seem to me that it might well be worth the while of the government to look into this scheme and see whether the residual value of assisting this committee in its activities might not be productive of a very good kind of immigrant who is otherwise very hard to get. I do not want to take up the time of the committee. I just wanted to mention it so there would be a reference to it in Hansard and I should be glad to show the correspondence to the minister.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I thank the hon. member for his suggestions. I do not know precisely what the reason is but, of course, we do not have an immigration office in Japan; also, we do not have a great many applications for entry. In 1959, 191 Japanese came into Canada. That is not a very great number; it is the highest of any year since the war. It has been creeping up. The years 1957, 1958 and 1959 are all pretty much on a par, and in 1957 there was an increase, and the number was nearly double what it had been the year before; there were 178 in 1957; 188 in 1958; and 191 in 1959. When we have requests for special cases, of course, we do our best to co-operate. The Saskatchewan situation is an example.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has anything been done about it?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes; it is being worked on. Arrangements are being carried forward through the department with respect to whatever establishment is required to set up the industry described. I do not think I can go farther than that because I cannot give details.
With regard to the West Indies there is, of course, a quota but not on the same basis as that for India, Pakistan and Ceylon. It is a quota of domestics and the quota was established, as the hon. member knows, after consultation with the government of the West Indies, based largely on the capacity of the West Indies government to train those domestics. Prior to federation two or three of the islands had quotas allotted to them. After federation representations were made by the West Indies minister responsible for an increase in the number and the number was increased by 50, so that at the present time there are 250 from the West Indies proper and 30 from British Guiana. My understanding is that this is pretty much all they can train in a year. They might squeeze in a few more. These people go to training schools and come here supposedly as properly trained domestics, having regard to the work which they will be required to do while in Canada.
However, in addition to those domestics who come forward, there are a certain number of specially qualified persons who come in simply because they have qualifications which are of value to Canada. These would include in some instances students who had come up here to pursue higher education and who, upon completion of their education, would apply to remain because they would have no difficulty whatsoever in securing employment. In fact, sometimes employment is offered to them because of their particular qualities and capabilities. Some of those people come in and then, of course, any person who is in the country may apply for his or her relatives, and some of those come in, with the result that over the last two years approximately 1,200 people have come in from the British West Indies. There again the number has grown over the years, and those two years are the highest of any years. I think this is a general explanation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I say just a word about this. I understand that the West Indies situation represents a quota within a quota, a quota in numbers which is qualified by limitation to a certain occupation, namely domestic service, and that the governments of the

West Indies take responsibility for the training and certifying as to the training of those who come here?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is correct.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Canadian government authorities take no responsibility for that. When they come here I take it they are supposed to be engaged in domestic service. Does the department have any record as to how long they stay in domestic service, how many of them leave domestic service, and if they do leave domestic service, is there any intervention on the part of the authorities to try to persuade them to go back to the occupation which they undertook to follow when they came into the country?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Chairman; we do not follow them up unless they come back to us and ask for employment; unless their employment terminates we would not have any record of them. We do not follow any of the immigrants once they are in the country. In so far as their placements is concernd, we turn them over to the national employment service and placement is made through that service.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just one question on this item. Can the minister inform the committee what percentage of the loans which were given to assist passages is uncollected, and if there is any difficulty in collecting from any particular group? I have been informed by the officials that they are behind in some cases.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can get that information for the hon. member. Since the scheme first went into operation on February 1, 1951, there have been 75,559 loans for a total of $19,127,558, of which $15 million odd has been collected. This does not indicate that the remainder are all delinquents. Repayments are being made all the time. I can find out for the hon. member what the amount is that we consider to be bad debts. I presume that is what he wants to know.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I will get that information.


Mr. Dumas:: Can the minister tell the committee whether the Canadian immigration centre on St. Antoine street in Montreal has been closed? If it has been closed, were the employees there integrated into some other department?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This was discussed in the house some time ago, Mr. Chairman. The hall was closed. It was an unsatisfactory
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration place and there had been a great many complaints about it. Finally, it was closed. We tried to place the employees wherever we could. Some of them, very few of them, did not want to be placed. Some of them were transferred to Quebec. Those who did not wish to go to Quebec-we consulted with the national employment service-in some instances we had them transferred to other departments of government. I do not know whether I can give the hon. member the exact number. Nine of them were re-assigned either in this department or in two other departments; two of them retired and the rest of them were taken care of either in Quebec or in some other employment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just before the item carries I should like to say to the minister that I think it would be a good idea if the government would give consideration to establishing a quota for the West Indies without an occupational limitation. The occupational limitation was only established very reluctantly by the previous government in the first place. I can speak about this because I do not think there was anything I did as minister that I did more reluctantly. It was done not because anyone in Canada was asking for it but because of representations received in the first instance from the government of Jamaica. I am not suggesting any large scale immigration. I do not think the West Indian community in Canada or anyone else really wants to see mass immigration. I do think that if we could have a quota such as the Indian quota-I do not mean in numbers because I have no suggestion as to numbers-which would include any kind of occupation and did not impose an occupational limitation it would be more consonant with the dignity of the new federation and would make for better relations.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I cannot speak from statistics at the moment but my impression is that a reasonable number come in now under the situation as I have described it. I know that persons who come to me and complain about the lack of immigration from the West Indies are always amazed when I tell them how many have actually come to Canada. I remember having one gentleman in my office about six months ago who complained very bitterly and said that he thought there should be a quota, as the hon. member has said, over and above the domestic quota. I said, "How many do you think should be allowed to come in from the West Indies in any one year"? He said, "Oh, I would think possibly 500 in addition to the domestic quota". I said, "That would be 750". He said, "Yes". I said, "Well, 1,200 came in". He was amazed. He said, "That is not true; that could not

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration possibly be true". I said, "It is true". I had great difficulty in convincing him that was a fact. I think there is a great deal of misinformation abroad. People do not realize that there is actually not a large but a very steady flow. There might be something to be said for some different arrangement, but I can assure the hon. member that we are watching this situation all the time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should not like any misunderstanding to arise. I would not suggest for one minute that there should be a quota as a substitute for close relative sponsorship. I regard close relative sponsorship as the best means of immigration there is, and I think that our experience since the war has shown us that it is. But it did seem to me that in addition a small quota that was not restricted as to occupation might perhaps be symbolic in the same way as the Indian, Pakistan and Ceylon quotas if the government of the West Indies wanted it. Of course, if they do not want it it would serve no purpose whatever.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is a very interesting point because generally speaking I do not like quotas.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor do I.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In the case of Ceylon and Pakistan they have not taken up their quotas at any time although they exist. In the case of India we made arrangements a year ago that each quota number would apply to a family unit instead of to an individual, which eased matters considerably in that regard. The quota was also split 50-50, I believe, between open placements and relatives. As a result of making relatives or family units half of the quota instead of an individual quota I think the situation is in fair shape there. If we did the same thing for the West Indies I would think that in the long run we would probably wind up with just about what we have today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That could well be. I am not pressing this unduly. I though it might remove a sense of grievance. I should like to say this right now to the hon. lady so that there will be no misunderstanding. If there is any suggestion by the government of Japan that they would like to have the prewar gentlemen's agreement revived I would hope the government would welcome that suggestion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, there are difficulties with respect to quotas and, as the minister knows, in principle it is certainly not the best way to deal with immigration. As I recall, the value of the quota as applied to Pakistan, India and Ceylon was not so


much in the number that came under the quota but that it removed a feeling of discrimination which had existed before because it put Canadians going into those countries on the same basis as nationals of those countries coming into Canada. So they no longer had a feeling of discrimination. If the same principle could be applied to the federation of the West Indies, and if the government there felt that there was a kind of discrimination against them, it might be useful from that point of view.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
505. Administration of the Immigration Act- further amount required, $25,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. lady would tell us why she needs more money when immigration is going down.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Increasing costs arising mostly from increases in salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
52.	Field and inspectional service, abroad, $2,150,979.
William Arnold Peters: What is the situation in Hong Kong with relation to departmental employees and those hired on a casual basis?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As I announced in the house some time ago, the head of our inspection services visited Hong Kong and brought back several recommendations, some of which have already been put into effect. They are purely administrative. He will, of course, be inspecting operations in all countries but he made this special trip because of the complaints which had been received.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
53.	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, $2,100,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. lady figures up to the latest available date as to the amount paid out by way of assistance to immigrants and the number of persons who have benefited therefrom? I do not mean family assistance.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You mean welfare assistance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Welfare assistance.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In 1959-60 the amount for food and shelter was $92,196.35, about one tenth of the amount for 1958-59 which was $986,000 odd. In 1957-58 the amount was $5,732,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But in that year it included transportation as well.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That could be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It included transportation of the Hungarians.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is probably quite right. Is the hon. member interested in family assistance?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Family assistance is just family allowances under another name.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I cannot give the hon. member the total number of persons assisted because it varies from month to month. In 1959 the minimum number was 251 in November and the maximum number was 1,282 in January. That gives a general picture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That included dependants as well?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the hon. lady say whether very many of the Hungarian refugees are now receiving assistance from the department?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I can say no to
that. These reports were coming in regularly but of late the figures have dwindled to the point where it was scarcely worth reporting any more. I do not have a specific report on the matter. If the hon. member is interested I can secure the information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to have it put on the record at some stage because, speaking personally, I take great pride in the fact that we brought to this country- the present government continued what we started-37,000 of these Hungarian refugees who had nothing but the clothes on their backs and practically all of them have established themselves in this country and are earning their own living today.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is really just an amplification of what I said. In January, 1959, which is a year and a half ago, there were 349 Hungarian refugees receiving assistance. My officials tell me that since that time the number has dwindled to such a point that we no longer keep track of them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very glad to hear that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: Vote No. 54?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it was understood that we would go back to vote 47, Mr. Chairman.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Citizenship-
47. Citizenship registration branch, $716,892.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the hon. lady if she has a statement she would like to make on this branch.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have a few short remarks. During the calendar year 1959 the number of applications for Canadian citizenship were lower than for the preceding year. The number of persons acquiring Canadian citizenship dropped from 84,000 in 1958 to
71,000	in 1959. There was a similar drop in the number of Canadian citizens who applied for certificates of proof of citizenship. This number dropped from 49,000 in 1958 to 44,000 in 1959. During the year 1959 one new Canadian citizenship court was established in Hamilton, Ontario. In the current calendar year, one new court of Canadian citizenship, located at London, Ontario, has already been opened and additional courts of Canadian citizenship will be opened in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and we hope in Moncton, New Brunswick. These new courts will bring to eight the total number of citizenship courts in operation.
I might add that while I know a good many of the county court judges who handled these applications in the past have been wonderful court judges and have taken a great interest in the applicants, I still feel that a uniform system is desirable. I hope that the day will come when most of our applicants for Canadian citizenship will go through our own departmental courts and not be forced to make their applications in courts which are primarily set up for the purpose of dealing with criminal and civil cases.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In so far as the courts are concerned, I must say that I cannot forbear doing a little boasting. I was responsible for the establishment of the first two courts in Toronto and Montreal. I took a great deal of satisfaction from the fact that these courts cost the taxpayers nothing. I think not only do they cost the taxpayers nothing but they provide such an infinitely better-I use the word "infinitely" almost in its correct etymological sense-service, a service so much better that there was no comparison. I would be interested in knowing something about the economics of the two new courts, perhaps the Hamilton one is the only one upon which the minister would have statistics. Is the Hamilton court costing the taxpayers something or is it paying for itself?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It was only started last year, so has just had about six months operation. However, even so, it reported a net revenue of $2,280.
5024	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. lady give the comparative costs of the courts in Toronto, Hamilton and Montreal?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I could, but not in its
entirety because the Hamilton court has not been operating for a full year. I really do not have a proper comparison.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps all we need would be the numbers of the staffs of these courts?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The staff at Montreal is 12; in Toronto, it is 15; and in Hamilton it is 5.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to take a minute or two to mention a couple of things. In the first place, I wonder if the minister thinks that the decline in the number of applicants is something that can be explained by a decline five years earlier-I would have to do a little arithmetic myself to see whether it would be-in the number of immigrants that year? I am wondering if it is following some pattern or if there is some other reason why the number has fallen off. I would be interested also in knowing whether there has been any improvement in the number of applications from British subjects for citizenship. I think the experience of the department was that the number was not as large in relation to other applicants, perhaps because they felt citizenship did not confer quite as great an advantage upon them as it did upon others. Some of us were rather disappointed that the number was not larger.
I would be interested to know also if the minister can tell us something about what promotional activities the department is carrying on with a view to urging people to make their applications promptly, and to bring before them the advantages of citizenship. Having listened to the hon. member for Fort William speak the last time the estimates were before the committee concerning the requirement of a knowledge of the English or French languages, I would say that on the first occasion when the citizenship act may again be before parliament for some reason-I would not go so far as to say we ought to make a special amendment for this purpose only-some clarification of the language should be made to indicate that some discretion should be shown by judges in connection with this matter. I was asked five years ago by someone in the committee on estimates what I thought would be an adequate knowledge of the English or French languages in the case of an applicant. I said if the applicant were someone who was employed, particularly if he was employed driving a motor car, I thought he ought to be able to read and speak pretty well. On


the other hand, if the applicant was a housewife who had several young children to bring up and very little time for much association with other people in the community or an older person who would not be in the employment stream, I thought if they could say "God Save the Queen"-maybe it was the king then-I would regard that as a fairly adequate knowledge.
I think it is desirable that citizens generally know the languages of the country. Some of the members of the treasury benches, knowing something of the difficulty even of learning one of the languages of their own country and also some of the advantages of doing so, would perhaps be more sympathetic now than they might have been at an earlier time toward some of these applicants. It seems to me some of these judges have been unduly conscientious, if I might perhaps use that word, about this requirement. Perhaps we should seek the next time the act is amended to do something to make that point clear. I agree completely with the hon. member for Fort William, who brought this matter before us the other day, that the last thing we want to do is to deny the mothers of families who have brought up good Canadian citizens many of them born in this country, citizenship simply because they have not had the time or the facility to learn to speak one of the official languages as well as the judges of the county courts speak it. I do want very warmly indeed to second what was so ably said the other day by the hon. member for Fort William.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As the hon. member knows we have a much better chance of making these suggestions to the presidents of our courts under the department than to the judges who, after all, are all-powerful in their own particular courts. While the minister might have some discretion if a case is approved by a judge, she has none whatever if the case is turned down by a judge. So so far as that is concerned I have no control over it, but I do think that as these courts are set up the situation will be improved.
I also think that through the advent of television more and more people will acquire a reasonable working knowledge of one of our two languages in Canada than possibly they did heretofore, because it is much easier to follow the television where action is joined with words than to follow radio where they only hear the sound. I think television is a great teacher for new people coming in.
I cannot give the hon. member any figures for 1959, but those persons from commonwealth countries who applied for citizenship

in 1957 numbered 8,650. This had increased to 10,235 in 1958 and I would think there is a similar increase for 1959.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Notwithstanding the general decline.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. We have been promoting this. There is a new poster which is displayed in post offices and other public places in all parts of Canada which urges people to apply for citizenship. It particularly draws attention to the fact that British subjects should apply for Canadian citizenship. We have advertisements in the ethnic press, and generally speaking promotion is going on all the time. Our liaison officers in various parts of the country also do their part.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just parenthetically may I say to the hon. lady that I do not think advertisements in the ethnic press would draw many British subjects to them.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, I did not relate them to British subjects. I meant that that was one of our promotional activities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
48. Citizenship branch, $785,159.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the hon. lady anything to say about this vote?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, I have. For the past two years the citizenship branch has been taking advantage of a reduced immigration flow to shift its attention from the more immediate problems of reception to those of social adjustment. More particularly this year efforts have been concentrated on language instruction and on integration at the neighbourhood level.
In the field of language classes, intensified liaison and promotional work with school authorities and throughout the immigrant population kept the national enrolment at close to 50,000, only slightly below previous levels. Teaching costs and free textbook distribution for beginners went down by less than 3.5 per cent. At the same time greater attention than ever was being paid to meeting special needs such as continued instruction throughout the summer, day courses for housewives, shift workers and hospital patients, and crash programs for immigrants awaiting placement. A gratifying measure of co-operation was secured from educational authorities in these fields throughout the vast majority of metropolitan centres. Finally, in addition to assisting in the conduct of a five regional week-end course for teachers of immigrants, the branch has been able to organize, with the co-operation of all provinces having a substantial immigrant population, a national six-week summer course for teachers at Toronto. The
16, 1960	5025
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration purpose of this training is to build up a core of skilful teachers and supervisors which would ensure that the teaching of English or French to immigrants is conducted by the most efficient methods.
At the neighbourhood level the branch has redoubled its efforts to bring about early acceptance and integration of newcomers. With the help of a special film produced in several languages a national program with home and school and parent-teacher associations was initiated to interpret the educational problems of immigrant children to Canadians and to encourage immigrant participation in community action. Significant progress was also made in drawing immigrants into the membership of community centres, scouts and guides, women's institutes, credit unions, junior chambers of commerce, and in securing immigrant representation on boards of community agencies. At the same time the branch has encouraged and assisted local radio, television or press representatives in the production of feature series on the lives and contributions of immigrants.
Throughout world refugee year the liaison officers of the branch have contributed their services to the organization and activities of committees, both at the national and local levels.
In March, 1960 the citizenship branch completed a long awaited revision of several monographs of ethnic groups published under the title of "Notes on the Canadian family tree". This publication is now on sale at the Queen's printer.
A growing emphasis has been placed by the branch on the fostering of sound community attitudes among the younger generation. Last year the branch promoted an increased number of leadership training courses for young adults from various religious, racial and ethnic backgrounds. It continued to encourage wider community participation in observances of brotherhood and citizenship weeks. Furthermore, considerably more attention is being paid this year to the organization of appropriate festivities for Dominion day in various Canadian centres, and I might say notably here in Ottawa. The branch has also been very closely associated with advance plans for Canada's centenary both among voluntary organizations and at the government level.


William Arnold Peters: I just want to ask while we are on the citizenship branch, if we are still issuing citizenship cards like those available after the war and, if so, how many people got those cards and whether they are used to any extent for travelling, and that sort of thing?

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the hon. member mean the miniature certificate? This program was started in 1954, and to date 143,815 miniature certificates have been issued.


William Arnold Peters: Can the minister tell us what the cost is and how you would go about getting these certificates.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Any of our courts will supply an application form. The applicant is required to have the form completed and two passport type photographs sent along with it. The fee is $2.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do these certificates pay for themselves?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure they do in human satisfaction.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I find that mine which was signed by myself was very useful, but I wondered if the $2 covered the cost. I would think it did quite adequately, but I do not know whether the department has any statistics.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I hesitate to mention this. I do not want to be accused of making a great profit, but I understand that in 1954 the cost was 49 cents. Now, of course, it will be a little more than that, but I can assure the hon. member that they still pay for themselves.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am very pleased to hear that because I certainly think they are worth the $2 which they cost. I never go out without mine and I have found it very useful on a good many occasions and I know a lot of other people who have too.
I just wanted to make one or two general observations with respect to the citizenship branch. I think the time has come when the minister should give very serious consideration to the amalgamation of the citizenship registration branch and the citizenship branch. It seems to me that with the establishment more generally across Canada of citizenship courts there could be a very much closer co-ordination, although I know there is a good deal of co-ordination already, there would be a more thorough focusing of attention upon immigrants and would-be citizens if the two branches were combined.
I do not say that should be done immediately, but I do think that very serious thought should be given, as far as possible, to reducing overhead and head office expenses and that sort of expense. In many cases I think it would be found that the functions of the two branches are so closely connected that there might well be, perhaps at a time when some changes in personnel are to be made anyway, consideration given to amalgamation.

I should also like to say a word or two about the publications of the citizenship branch. If I say anything which seems to be a little critical it would be very easy for the minister to say, "Why didn't you do something about it when you were there?" I suggested to the minister last year, and I think she has taken my advice to some limited extent, that we ought to put a value on many of these publications of a more general character. I am not referring so much to those specifically directed to the language instruction of immigrants because I am heartily in favour of that as long as it is done efficiently. But I do think that if perhaps some of these other publications were put to the acid test of price we might find we could make some savings to the treasury which I am sure would be welcome to the Minister of Finance and to the taxpayers. I know that of the total cost of the government of Canada the amount spent on the citizenship branch is small, but that applies to a great many other departments, and unless we apply economies wherever we can the cost of government will keep growing and growing.
I feel about a lot of government publications that if there were any way of getting them stopped it would be a wonderful thing, at least for members of parliament, and when it gets to the point that you have to spend much of your time every day moving them from one side of your desk to the other and, if one is conscientious, thinking you should be reading these things, one begins to wonder whether there is not some way of saving not only the taxpayers money but all the energy and the time of many other people in the country.
I do not intend to say anything about any of the publications specifically, but I do think this is one area where a good deal of thought might be given to co-ordination and amalgamation as a goal, and not too distant a goal either, in order to bring about a reduction in cost.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am pleased to hear the hon. member speak in that vein because I feel much the same myself. As a matter of fact this year we have cut our appropriation from $53,725 to $21,600 and the number of publications we are putting out this year has been reduced. Some of the more popular ones will have to be reprinted; ones which I am sure the hon. gentleman would think very useful. Nevertheless, this year we are only reprinting ten publications.


Frank Howard: I should just like to pose one question to the minister. This is something to which critical reference has been made from time to time, and perhaps some action is afoot to correct it, or perhaps it has been

corrected already. I make reference to the variation in approach used by various judges in dealing with applications for citizenship.
From my limited knowledge I understand that one judge may be strict, for argument sake, in his manner of questioning of applicants and in the type of questions and the degree of proficiency with which he wants those questions answered, compared with another judge who might be, for argument sake, more lenient. In fact the situation has been established, in some cases, where some areas of a province or some provinces become known as easy places for a person to pass the test of citizenship in so far as the questions asked are concerned compared with another country or another place in the province.
I wonder what consideration has been given to attempting to develop some unified approach that judges would follow in asking questions of applicants for citizenship in order that there can be a fairly uniform approach to this question across the country rather than having it vary from province to province or from county to county within the same province.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I have discussed that point with the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate when I was speaking. We really do not have any control over county court judges. That is one of the main reasons we would like to set up our own courts, because then we could suggest uniform procedures. I agree with the hon. member that it would be definitely advisable to have uniform procedures wherever they could be obtained.


Frank Howard: I must apologize for not being here when this matter was being discussed earlier. However, it is not a question of attempting to control the county court judges and suggesting to them that they must ask certain questions or things of that nature. This arises out of a discussion I had with Judge Schultz in the county of Prince Rupert. He is a judge appointed during the last couple of years and he, as well as the citizenship council in Prince Rupert, believe that perhaps the proper procedure might be to have a list of types of questions which judges might use to advantage in obtaining information so as to ensure a greater degree of uniformity across the country.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We had some such scheme for a while, but it was not very popular with the judges.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian affairs branch-
54. Administration, $703,460.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister wishes to make a statement.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: On this first item of Indian affairs I think it would be appropriate for me to tell the committee something about the trip I made through western Canada last summer when it was my fortunate experience to come into personal touch with a considerable cross-section of our Indian population. I travelled some ten thousand miles, meeting Indians from 53 bands representative of over 220 reserves. From Island Lake in Manitoba to the coast of British Columbia I visited Indian families in their homes, discussed problems with band chiefs and councillors and saw the people at work in their many and varied occupations. Everywhere my attention was drawn to Indian schools, houses, community halls and other facilities on reserves.
Throughout the country I found a common interest by Indians in improved housing, advancement in education, community development and economic prosperity. Band chiefs and councillors are as one in their willingness to participate more fully in the administration of band affairs. From all bands I experienced a forthright, friendly reception which is characteristic of the human warmth of our Indian people. With these attributes they are going forward rapidly in their successful adjustment to the Canadian social and economic environment. It is indeed a privilege to work with them.
As already mentioned, Indian band councils are taking an increasing interest in the administration of band affairs. Approximately two thirds of all bands are now under the elective system and I am pleased to note that during the fiscal year just ended a number of Indian women were successful candidates in band elections, bringing to a total of six the number of Indian women holding the office of chief and 73 as councillors, 10 of whom were elected under the tribal custom.
The 1960-61 main estimates for Indian affairs show an increase of $3,581,296 over 1959-60. The major portion of this increase is attributable to two basic important fields, namely education and welfare.
I feel that too much emphasis cannot be placed on our educational program, for it is only through the processes of education that we can enable our Indian people, on their own initiative and resources, to advance to higher economic and social levels. To further emphasize this point I would state that of the total appropriation for Indian affairs, 59.8 per cent will be used for educational purposes.
Again this year there has been a very marked increase in the number of Indian pupils receiving an education. For the 195960 fiscal year the figures show a total enrolment of 40,637 pupils of whom 9,479 are enrolled at non-Indian schools, universities,
5028	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration teachers' colleges and commercial and trade schools. This latter figure represents an increase of nearly 1,300 over last year. Particularly encouraging is the increase in the number of students enrolled at the university level which has now reached 58 including those enrolled in grade 13.
In recent years a program of organizing education committees composed of Indian band members was introduced to deal with school matters on the reserves. It is hoped that these will become embryonic school boards and in this way give to the Indian people an element of control and direction in the field of education which should be of vital concern to them. I am pleased to report that the number of these committees now stands at 19, an increase of 6 over the previous fiscal year.
Each year there has been an interest expressed in the scholarship program of the department and during the 1959-60 fiscal year 17 scholarship awards were made to outstanding Indian students. This represents an expenditure of $14,375 for this purpose.
It is proposed to construct during the fiscal year 118 classrooms together with other necessary construction and including 74 staff residences at an estimated total cost of $7,362,500 which includes all necessary equipment, and provision has been made for substantial contributions toward construction of provincial schools which would enable the joint education of Indian and non-Indian children. Both the Indian day and residential school programs have been maintained at the same level.
There has been a steady development of adult education programs designed primarily to attack the problem of illiteracy which is to be found on many of the reserves. During the 1958-59 fiscal year this program served 857 students but the numbers have increased for the 1959-60 year. The returns show a total enrolment of 1,223 with the greatest numbers enrolled in literacy and homemaking courses.
During the last fiscal year a record total of 1,465 houses were built on Indian reserves and in Indian communities across Canada and another 228 units were started. This is a larger number of houses than has been built in any previous year. The achievement is particularly noteworthy since standards have been steadily improved and the costs of material and labour have continued to increase. These houses were financed from the $2 million in public funds in the 1959-60 estimates and the contribution from the Indians themselves in the form of labour, cash, materials, band funds and V.L.A. grants. I should like to pay particular tribute to the increased measure of responsibility being assumed by individual Indians and band


councils who, through their co-operation and participation, have made this achievement possible.
It is proposed to maintain the same rate of expenditure for Indian housing in 1960-61. There will be increased emphasis on better standards of construction, improved sanitary facilities and adequate community planning. Every effort will be made to encourage greater participation of the prospective Indian home owner in the planning, financing and construction of his house. Special attention will be given to the needs of Indians in northern and remote areas in order to bring housing in such Indian communities up to an acceptable standard as soon as possible.
It will be noted that there is an increase in operating costs for welfare of $1,375,313. When presenting the estimates for 1959-60 I mentioned the introduction of revised methods and improved standards of relief administration on behalf of Indians. It is a pleasure to report that these methods and the new rates which went into effect April 1, 1959 have proved to be generally satisfactory. Indians, on the whole, have responded splendidly to the responsibility which the management of this income placed in their hands under the new procedures. They have fully justified our confidence in their ability to do so. Indigent members of 20 per cent of the bands in Canada now receive relief assistance in cash and it is planned to extend this practice to additional bands this year.
I should like to make it clear that the scales of assistance established are for food only. In addition, assistance is granted, as necessary, in individual cases for such purposes as fuel, clothing, necessary household equipment and shelter. I should like to stress that the assistance granted is subject to a means test.
It is an important objective of my department to make it possible for Indians to have access to the same sources of assistance in time of need as other persons in the province in which they live. I announced to the house on April 8 last that the federal government is prepared to negotiate agreements with the governments of the various provinces for the extension of the normal provincial services to persons residing on Indian reserves. The purpose is to avoid the development of exclusive welfare services on reserves which would tend to set Indians apart from other Canadians and would duplicate existing provincial programs in adjacent nonIndian communities. I said that in negotiating these agreements the federal government is prepared to pay a reasonable share of the cost of the benefits over and above the

federal contribution under existing federal-provincial agreements such as the Unemployment Assistance Act. In addition, this government is prepared to share with provinces reasonable costs of additional staff and of administration required. In cases where provincial welfare programs are normally administered by municipalities, my department will be prepared to negotiate agreements which will enable bands to fulfil the same functions and discharge the same responsibilities.
I also announced on April 8 that in future my department will undertake to provide essential welfare services on behalf of certain categories of non-Indians on reserves. The principal concern is for women of Indian origin who have lost Indian status through enfranchisement or marriage but who have no alternative but to return to friends and relatives on the reserves. The decision to implement this policy was based on humanitarian considerations. Essential assistance to these people when in need can now be provided in the same manner and to the same extent as for persons of Indian status on the reserves in similar circumstances.
Last year I informed you of the establishment of a new division, one of the prime functions of which is to promote the employment of Indians. Placement officers are now functioning in the eight administrative regions. From the inception of the placement program in April, 1957 approximately 500 individuals have been established in permanent employment and 4,000 in rural and seasonal occupations. Almost half of these placements were made during the fiscal year just ended.
One hundred revolving fund loans in the total amount of $109,209.78 were approved during the last fiscal year to assist Indians to become established. While a higher proportion of this amount was used to develop the agriculture industry, the department also supplied repayable advances to enable Indians to purchase seed, farming equipment and other supplies. A number of foundation livestock herds were made available to Indians in the prairie provinces. The increase in the item for equipment and supplies will make possible the continuation and further expansion of this program.
In continuation of the accelerated forestry inventory program initiated two years ago in British Columbia arrangements have been made with the forestry branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to carry out forest surveys on all forested Indian reserves east of the Rockies, beginning in 1961. This project will include
16, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration a re-survey of reserves in northern Ontario carried out by the forestry branch during the period 1949 to 1952.
It is also planned to continue the forest inventory of reserves in British Columbia this coming season. This project, under the supervision of a firm of forest consultants, has so far produced survey reports covering approximately one half the forested acreage. During this past winter a forest survey on the Restigouche Indian reserve in Quebec was also carried out by a forest consultant firm.
The services of the forestry branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and provincial forestry departments are utilized to a wide extent. The over-all policy is to bring under forest management as much of the timbered area of Indian reserves as possible with a view, where possible, to placing reserve forestry on a perpetual yield basis.
The Indian Act provides for the transfer to bands of control over revenue fund expenditures. Some progress has been made in this direction. Three bands in the southern Ontario region have taken over such control, and one band in British Columbia has agreed to assume similar responsibility. Others are giving serious consideration to the matter. The taking over of responsibility for management and control of revenue fund expenditures has been proposed to several additional band councils, but it will be appreciated that this is a matter that cannot be pressed unduly. The desire for greater responsibility and control over their own affairs must in the final analysis emanate from the Indian community itself.
Meanwhile, improved administrative services for Indians residing in more remote areas is occupying the attention of my department. For example, at the start of this fiscal year a new administrative region was established to service Indians in the Northwest Territories. This is to be known as the district of Mackenzie region with headquarters at Fort Smith. This step has been taken to provide better supervision over the affairs of the Indian population in the Northwest Territories. Under the district of Mackenzie region an additional agency will come into operation at Fort Simpson. ;


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make any extended general references in reply to the statement that the hon. lady has just made. I recognize that in view of the fact there is a joint committee of the two houses sitting discussing the Indian Act and Indian matters generally there is perhaps not the same need here in this committee at this particular session for

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration extended observations which might be repetitious. Since the government has insisted on so many committees sitting at once during the session I have found it impossible to attend the Indian affairs committee without staying away from another committee where I have a more urgent responsibility. I would not like to inflict upon other hon. members a repetition of matters that may have been rather thoroughly discussed there.
I must say, as I have said on previous occasions when the minister's estimates were before the committee, that I find it much easier to agree with the minister's general approach to the Indian affairs branch of the department than I do to agree with her general approach to the problems of immigration. The minister, it seems to me, is following precisely along the lines that were established by my predecessor and hers, Mr. Harris, who really with the new Indian Act and with the new administration which accompanied it did make a very great advance in this field over what had been done before.
We all know it was one of those regrettable incidents of the second world war that the Indian affairs branch, and some other branches of the civil government did get somewhat neglected-and I do not think anybody was really to blame for this except the urgency of meeting the demands for manpower that did seem to most of us, rightly or wrongly, to be the more urgent task at that time.
However, I do want to reiterate in the most emphatic language I can the view which I hold and which I think, judging from an earlier debate in this session-you do not need to worry, Mr. Chairman; I am not going to seek to traverse that subject-seemed to be the general view of the house, namely the idea that the goal of our policy should be voluntary integration of Indians just as rapidly as that can be accomplished. I do not think there should be any compulsion whatever put upon them. I think that has to be made abundantly clear because, rightly or wrongly-I am afraid sometimes rightly-a lot of Indians have the feeling that what we mean by integration is neglect, and this is certainly not what I mean. What I mean by integration is that I should like to see the Canadian citizenship of Indians become so much a matter of pride that that would be what they would be most proud of, without, of course, neglecting in any way that appropriate pride of ancestry, that proper pride in their individual characteristics and in their traditions, many of which traditions we would not, I think, find it unprofitable to follow.
Integration is not possible without encouraging in the Indians a sense of selfreliance. It seems to me that in order to get

that sense of self-reliance that is going to be essential if the Indians are to feel they do not have to regard their reserves and certain other special privileges as a kind of crutch in life, it must be based on a feeling of genuine equality. This means that they must have available to them equal opportunities and if we are going to be fair to them at all I would say a little better than equal opportunities for education. It also means that they must have more than just education. They must have an increased capacity and an increased desire instilled in them to manage their own affairs and also to share in managing the affairs of the community in which they live. Therefore, I am very glad indeed to hear the minister say that this business-one could wish it were something else but it is one of those inescapable necessities at the present time-of giving to the Indians a greater responsibility for the distribution of relief, paying relief in cash instead of in kind, is one step in the right direction.
Any kind of step that can be taken to give band councils more responsibility and more capacity to look after their own affairs and to establish a less paternalistic approach to the whole matter is, in my view, highly desirable. The other thing we have to recognize increasingly is that because of modern sanitation, because of better housing for which we are all very grateful, the relatively high birth rate among the Indian population in Canada is resulting in a rapid increase in the Indian population, which means that every year there must be available to the Indians substantially more jobs, or more economic opportunities of one kind and another than there were in the previous year if they are simply to maintain their existing standard of living and not even to increase it. We cannot be satisfied if they alone maintain their existing standard of living. Certainly most of these economic opportunities and most of these jobs are not going to be found on the reserves. This is why it seems to me that next to education the most important thing in the Indian affairs department is the conscious development of economic opportunities, the encouragement of the Indians to accept employment and the encouragement of employers to accept Indians, which is just as important.
I want to say again, as I think I have said every year, that during the time I was minister I had the benefit, which I am told the minister has not got for many reasons, of the services in this field of Mr. Mel Jack who in my view had the right conception of this matter and the right attitude to it, the attitude that we must not be too paternalistic, that we must encourage the Indians to

plunge in and take these jobs and must encourage employers to make these opportunities available and treat the Indians like their other employees, show them consideration but also expect them to pull their weight. All these things which were started at that time have proved to be a surprising success.
I remember the difficulties we had at first in getting farmers in Alberta to consider having the Indians help them with their sugar beets. I understand that the farmers now almost come on hands and knees to the minister. I remember the first discussions I had with some representatives of the mining community in northern Ontario who wanted me to facilitate a search for miners in Europe. I asked them why they should go to Europe when right on their own doorstep they had these original Canadians who needed jobs. They thought I was being very ridiculous.


Mr. Thrasher:: Did you say that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that and I was supported by Mr. Mel Jack who followed up the matter. As a matter of fact, we did persuade some of these people to accept Indians and they were astonished at their success. Of course, some of the Indians did not succeed but some immigrants do not succeed and some other native-born Canadians do not succeed. There is nothing unique about a failure, but in one or two of these cases there was in the beginning something that was close to being unique about success.
I believe that these two things, education and normal employment in the integrated Canadian society, are the road and the only road to the creation of a healthy, respectable and prideful relationship between the Indians and the other citizens of Canada. I am afraid it will not be true no matter what efforts are made but nevertheless I hope that some of the younger members of the house will live long enough to see the day when the minister's office of superintendent general of Indian affairs is no longer needed, when we will no longer need an Indian affairs branch and when no distinction of any kind will be made between Indians and other Canadians.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, in rising to make a few remarks on this item may I say that I hope the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was not including himself among those who might not live long enough to see the discontinuance of the office of superintendent general of Indian affairs. I should like to see that happy event occur with the greatest possible speed, not that I want to see the present minister, as long as she remains minister, partially unemployed but
16, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration because I think that this is the most advantageous result to which we can look forward. The one branch of the government with which I have perhaps had more contact and more correspondence than any other is the Indian affairs branch. I sometimes wonder whether the director, Colonel Jones, does not get a bit fed up with hearing from me, and I should like to express publicly to Colonel Jones and the other officials of the Indian affairs branch in its various divisions my appreciation of their kindness, the speed with which they have answered all my queries and the consideration they have given to any problems I have brought to their attention. I am sure that any other hon. members who have had occasion to discuss matters with officials of the branch will wish to express the same appreciation.
I should also like to express my appreciation to the minister for having established a new agency at Terrace which is located in the community from which I come. This will be of great assistance in the departmental administration of the affairs of the Indian bands now in the Terrace agency and which before were some considerable distance from the agency under which they were placed. I am sure the new agency will assist immeasurably in dealing with the problems of the Indian people in the bands concerned. In addition, other Indian agencies will have less administrative work to do with respect to these bands.
The minister referred to the institution of the practice of making welfare payments by cash or cheque rather than in kind. She indicated that this had been instituted in some agencies and that during the coming year the intention is to expand the making of welfare payments by cheque. I have had some communication with the department about this matter and I should like to see the practice extended as soon as possible, especially with respect to the Babine agency whose headquarters are at Hazelton, also in my constituency. It may be that steps are already underway to institute the making of welfare payments by cheque in this agency.
The reason I should like to see it done there as soon as possible is that the Indian people who come under the Babine agency are in close touch with and speak the same language as many of those coming under the Skeena river agency and the Terrace agency. They follow the same line of work, fishing, and at this time of the year or a little earlier they congregate in Prince Rupert and other coastal points. I understand that the system of payment by cheque is in effect in both the Terrace and Skeena river agencies and this causes some conflict because the Indian

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration people of the Babine agency meet their relatives and friends, find that they are receiving welfare payments by cheque and want to know why this is not so in the Babine agency.
I would appreciate it if this could be speeded up as much as possible.
The minister and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate also made reference to educational facilities and opportunities for our Indian people. To me this is also a most important aspect of the work of the Indian affairs branch. I am pleased to se the continuing increase in the amount of the appropriation for educational purposes and opportunities. In the past not only the Indians but other people have been denied the opportunity to obtain an education or have been restricted to a certain degree of education. To my mind this is an important factor in the advancement of our native Indians and in assisting them to become integrated and to advance to the position where they will be in the same class and on the same footing as those who are not Indians.
' The minister made some reference to surveying reserves for timber purposes and this is a commendable approach. With respect to the sale of reserve lands, I should like to emphasize that everything possible should be done, having regard to the circumstances, to see that generally the policy of the department is to discourage the sale of Indian reserve land as much as possible and to concentrate, if possible, on leases or rental arrangements. We have seen an instance or two in which the sale of reserve lands or part of the reserve lands has not been of any long term economic or other advantage to the Indians themselves. I think, perhaps, if the policy were one of not encouraging the sale of reserve lands it would be most beneficial in the long run to the Indian people themselves and to society as a whole.
In so far as the Indian affairs committee is concerned I, like the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, sit on two other committees, the meetings of which coincide in point of time with the meetings of the Indian affairs committee. I have found it difficult at times to be in boths places at once and, therefore, have had to miss some of the proceedings of the Indian affairs committee, which is regrettable. However, I believe all members of the committee who have attended the meetings have been impressed by the calibre of the Indians who have appeared before that committee, by the clarity with which they have expressed themselves, the manner in which their briefs were prepared and presented, and the understanding that they have had of the points and problems which they have presented. As I have said, this


impressed me greatly, as I am sure it impressed other members of the committee.
One of the things which I believe we must attempt to develop, and this has been emphasized on a number of occasions by a number of people-this is not an original thought of mine-is the need to develop in Canada the highest possible degree of mutual understanding and respect. Probably the emphasis should be placed on that phase of mutual understanding and respect that is necessary on the part of non-Indian people generally, because there are many non-Indian people in Canada who because of geographic factors or economic factors do not come into contact with the Indian people. Consequently they have a very scanty understanding, if any, of the way of life of Indian people or their problems. The more that we can bring the non-Indian people to understand, respect and appreciate the cultural background, history and heritage of our Indian people, the better opportunity there will be in the future for the Indian people to play a greater role in our society as well as contributing to their own welfare and their own well-being.
Perhaps as a part of this program we should participate as much as possible in teaching the Indian children themselves as much as we know of the history of their own people so that they, too, can understand and appreciate their own cultural heritage, their own cultural background. I know from talking to Indian people living in villages which are relatively isolated that their knowledge of their background, their history, was greater than that of Indian people who have been in close contact with society or with non-Indians because they have been close to urban areas and their contact with their own people has been less than in the other case. There is a tendency for these children to forget or to lack any understanding of their own people and their own background. Perhaps this could also be a contributing factor to the development of that mutual respect and understanding of each other that is so necessary, and in conjunction with the educational approach perhaps could result in progress for our Indian people toward self-sufficiency and toward regarding themselves less as an inferior race and more as a proud race.
There has been some reference to the question of enfranchisement, which is another factor connected with this whole problem. I certainly congratulate the minister on her approach to this question. I believe that we should, without hesitation and without any qualms, eliminate the compulsory section of the Indian Act which deals with enfranchisement. I refer to the section of the act under

which an Indian or a band can be enfranchised compulsorily whether or not they want it. I think this section should be removed from the act. I do not believe there is much purpose in retaining the other enfranchisement section. This is a recent thought that I have developed after listening to the presentations made to the committee and as a result of discussions I have had outside the committee. I know that there will be problems arising from the complete elimination of any reference in the act to enfranchisement. This does not necessarily have the connotation which we normally attach to the word "enfranchisement", which means the Indian is no longer an Indian within the meaning of the act; is no longer a member of the band; has no longer a right on the reserve and is in the same class as non-Indian people.
I believe that Indians should have complete freedom to live upon the reserve or to leave that reserve, to come and go as they please, a freedom which they have at the moment and which many Indians exercise. I know a number of them, and some of them are in very responsible positions in society. Some of them are still members of the band, although they have not been on the reserve for many years. They still retain that connection, and some of them live many hundreds of miles from their home reserve. This situation can exist at the moment.
The enfranchisement section, as I understand it, was designed to be an attraction to Indians to leave the reserve and become non-Indians, in effect, in so far as the legal definition under the Indian Act is concerned. Some of the Indians have taken advantage of this section, have become enfranchised for a variety of reasons, but these reasons I feel are gradually diminishing. The more we progress toward the removal of the restrictive sections of the Indian Act, the more we move toward equality of status, the less reason there is for the enfranchisement section. I know there will be complications here in so far as band funds are concerned, and whether the Indian will have the opportunity of taking with him his per capita share from those band funds. However, I do not believe the difficulty is insurmountable. There are various ways of overcoming it.
I think this is the understanding of the Indians that we want to have, and an appreciation of the fact they have a vested interest in this country, more so than I have or other non-Indians have. We should recognize this fact and say to the Indian that he can continue to live on the reserve if he so desires or he can leave it, but it is not necessary for him to give up entirely his
16, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Indian status and thus cut himself off completely from ever returning to the reserve or to his Indian status. If you remove the enfranchisement sections from the act, as I say, this problem can be overcome.
So far as local control is concerned this too will be a contributing factor in the integration process. I draw attention especially to the word "integration" because it has been given the connotation that the Indian must become one of us and forget all about the fact that he is an Indian. I do not mean that by the word integration. I mean that in order to add to the respect of the Indian himself and in order to add to the mutual respect and understanding which we should have for each other, and in order that he may overcome what inferiority complex may have been developed in him through the activities of non-Indians, we should to a very large measure as quickly as possible and as much as possible give to the Indian and the band councils the right to run their own affairs. I think the minister said that there were three bands in southern Ontario and one in British Columbia, but in any event there were four bands in Canada who now have control over their own band funds without any authority from the minister to administer them. This is working in the direction of local control and of self-sufficiency, self-development and self-operation of their own affairs. I think this should be expanded as quickly as possible.
I know that errors will be made, and that is understandable. There is not a municipal council in existence in Canada that has not made an error at some time or other about the disposition of its revenue. I do not think there has ever been a government of Canada that in some way or another has not made some error in the administration of moneys which it collects or spends, or any provincial government either, for that matter. I know that I have made a number of mistakes in the manner in which I spend my money, and I do not seem to learn from them either. But the more we give the bands the administration of their own affairs and the making of their own bylaws on the reserve and the right to expend their own moneys, the more we will be asking them to learn and the quicker will they be able to develop those abilities to reach a higher status in society.
I should like to make one other reference to those sections of the Indian Act which deal with the liquor question. I believe it was at the last session when another hon. gentleman held the position you now hold Mr. Chairman, that I got into some difficulties when making reference to some individuals in society who had provided liquor for some Indians, but I do not intend to get into that
5034	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration field today although it is still a valid point. The provisions in the Indian Act relating to liquor for Indians are such that the initiative rests with the provincial governments and it is initially up to the provincial governments to decide on the liquor question with regard to Indians and decide to what extent Indians may be in posession of liquor within the province.
Perhaps I can relate this briefly. The first of these approaches is for the provincial government by proclamation to declare that an Indian can consume liquor in licensed premises only. That is the only place he can have a drink. He cannot buy liquor in a liquor store or a wine store, or whatever it is, in a particular province and take it home. He cannot come into my house and have a drink with me because that would be illegal; it is within the province.
The second step, which is again by proclamation, is that the Indian can be in possession of liquor within the province but not on the reserve. This would allow an Indian to be able to consume liquor in a licensed premises such as a beer parlour or cocktail bar and would also give him the right to come into my home at my invitation and have a drink with me. It would also give him the right to buy liquor at a liquor store and transport it to his place of residence if it was not on a reserve, but he could not take it on the reserve.
The final and complete authority is that he be allowed to have liquor on the reserve if the majority of the band members vote by plebiscite or referendum to have it on that particular reserve.
In various parts of Canada there are dif-ferents degrees of availability to Indians of liquor, and I would like to deal with one which exists in British Columbia because I think it is rather an asinine one. It has operated there ever since 1951 or 1952 when the provincial government proclaimed that the Indian had the right to consume liquor in licensed premises, and that is as far as he could go. He cannot have it on the reserve or have it in his possession anywhere in the province; he can only go into a beer parlour or into a cocktail bar, buy a drink and drink it there. This has been the law for a number of years.
However, the attorney general of British Columbia, Attorney General Bonner, has said it is entirely up to the Indians whether they want liquor or not, that it has nothing to do with his government. I submit that Attorney General Bonner is just passing the buck and refusing to deal with the question, or he does not know what he is talking about


and has not paid any attention to the Indian Act or the liquor act of British Columbia. It is at this stage entirely within the jurisdiction of the Indian act of British Columbia to proclaim the next step of his being in possession within the province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. membei permit a question?


Frank Howard: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did he ever attempt to discuss this matter with the premier of British Columbia?


Frank Howard: I have tried on a number of occasions to discuss many matters with the premier of British Columbia and I have had the same degree of success as did the Minister of Finance. It just is not possible to discuss anything with Premier Bennett.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought that would be the answer.


Frank Howard: In fact I have written him letters about a number of things, I have still not had a reply, and the last letters were written four or five years ago.


An hon. Member:: They must have got lost.


Frank Howard: That is not the Post Office Department's fault either because I know he did get the letters.
So that this is merely a buck passing game that Attorney General Bonner is engaged in in the province of British Columbia, or it indicates how inefficient he is. He should not be in that position if he does not know about the liquor act of British Columbia or about the Indian Act.
There is another even more ridiculous system which exists in British Columbia with respect to liquor and perhaps this system also exists in other provinces, but I do not know. Right now by proclamation of the province an Indian can consume liquor in a licensed premises. The Indian Act calls it "a public place". However, if an Indian who is a veteran belongs to the Canadian Legion which has a liquor licence, while he is allowed to consume liquor in a beer parlour he cannot go into the licensed premises of the Canadian Legion. That shows you how ridiculous these things are.
I raised this matter with Colonel McGugan, chairman of the liquor control board of British Columbia and with the minister, and I had correspondence with them and with the Canadian Legion about it, but it remains a fact. This again is an overstrict and perhaps foolish interpretation given by the provincial government authorities. Let hon. members imagine, if they can, an Indian

who is a veteran having the right to go into a public place to consume liquor and yet not having the right to go into his own Canadian Legion to which he belongs and which, perhaps, he helped to build and to finance. We can see how foolish is the application of our liquor laws to our Indian native people.
As far as these liquor laws are concerned, I think Indians should have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as everybody else. I can never forget the conclusive argument used by Mr. Frank Calder, C.C.F. M.L.A. in British Columbia when dealing with people who do not want Indians to have liquor. Frank used to say: yes, it is true. The Indian, when he becomes drunk, becomes obnoxious; he wobbles all over the place; he cannot control his emotions, uses unkind language, wants to fight; in fact, he is almost as bad as a drunken white man. This, I think, sums it up. There is not too much difference between one and the other.
If we could arrange that Indians should have the same rights and the same responsibilities with regard to liquor as do other citizens of Canada we would be taking another step on the road to equality and eventually we might come to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate when we would no longer have to address the hon. lady in her capacity as superintendent general of Indian affairs.


Mr. Wrallen:: I should like to draw to the attention of the minister a problem which I brought up in 1958 when the present Minister of Justice was acting minister of citizenship and immigration. This has to do with the administration of justice on the Six Nations reserve which is adjacent to the city of Brantford which I represent.
Before anyone becomes excited about this item of justice being dealt with by the federal government, I want to emphasize the fact that the Territorial Lands Act made the Six Nations reserve a part of the county of Brant for everything but municipal purposes. That is the reason we get no taxes whatsoever from the township of Tuscarora to help toward the cost of the administration of justice in the county of Brant. Both the city of Brantford and the county of Brant have to pay the full cost of maintaining magistrates courts, county courts and supreme court hearings if cases come up on the reserve.
I made quite a statement in 1958, and after that was given some publicity in the newspapers and brought to the attention of the provincial government they did come through with a grant of $1 per capita up to $3,500 to help toward these costs. One of the problems I brought out at that time was the fact
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that in the period I was talking about there was $3,390 paid in fees in the magistrate's court. Of this, $2,200 went to the dominion government and $689 went back to the Six Nations reserve on account of the classification of cases that came before the court. It seems a point of irony that the federal government, which does not contribute one cent toward these costs, should get the biggest share of the fines taken in this magistrate's court. I have just a short statement of some of the costs and how it works out. In the county and the city for this last year it worked out at $1.79 per capita. That is the net direct charge for the administration of justice, shared by the county and the city in 1959.
Also we have quite a problem in trying to find out how many people there actually are on the reserve. If you talk to some officials they say there are perhaps 3,500, but other officials, who like to feel they have a somewhat bigger job than some people appreciate, claim there are 6,000. This makes quite a difference in the grants we get from the Ontario government and it makes a big difference to the cost of administering justice in the county and magistrate's courts.
The city and the county are both responsible for the maintenance of juveniles committed to training schools from their respective municipalities, and included in the administration of justice figure above is a charge for one boy and one girl who are not band Indians. The cost was charged to the county of Brant and shared by the city and the county-it amounted to $501.30. There are also the juvenile and family courts. The net direct charge for these and for the probation office in 1959 was $5,469, shared by the city and the county. The people of Tuscarora and the Six Nations reserve use this court and it is available to them just as it is to the people of the city and the county. In addition, the court house supplies heating, maintenance and other features which are necessary for the sittings of these juvenile and family courts.
There is another problem. You will remember that last year when we had the uprising down on the reserve-quite a turnout that was down there-a number of young chaps were arrested and brought into court. But through the intervention of some individuals the cases were dismissed. However, the costs of the crown attorney who prosecuted in these cases have not been picked up for payment by anybody and therefore they went back to the city and county for payment. I do not think it should be the responsibility of the city or the county to pay costs when cases are dismissed.
We have also to pay for the supreme court sittings with regard to any criminal cases
5036	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that come from the reserve. Last year a resident of the reserve was arrested for murder and lodged in the county jail. She was not in her right mind. That meant we had to have matrons on 24-hour duty at all times. We also had, finally, to take her to St. Thomas where she had to be examined by doctors, and the extra cost over and above the direct charges such as maintenance while in jail, constables' attendance in court, the crown attorney's fees, sheriff's fees and sheriff's office expenses amounted to $3,113.
There is money available in the Six Nations fund. They assume they are wards of the federal government, and the federal government showed that they realized that this is part of their jurisdiction because not too long ago-some few years ago-they put the R.C.M.P. down there to police this reserve. So I think it is only fair and just that the federal government should make money available for the Six Nations Indians or the township of Tuscarora to pay their share of magistrate's court and county court costs to the city and to the county of Brant. This has been a problem we have had to put up with for a long number of years. I should like the minister to take note of the fact that we would like to have a fair share of the cost come from this reserve.
Another problem I should like to bring to the attention of the minister is that of fire protection on the reserve. Indeed there is no fire protection on the reserve at this time. Some day we are going to be faced with a serious fire on this reserve that will result in the death of children and grown-ups and because of the lack of fire protection there the cry will go out that the fire departments of the township of Brantford and Brantford city should have gone to the reserve and looked after the fire. The fire department of the city of Brantford has responded to calls on the reserve but it was not able to obtain an agreement with the council there to pay for these calls and so the service has been discontinued.
After the township established its volunteer fire brigade it responded to the first call on the reserve and was told it would be paid for it. Unfortunately the promise was not kept and the township has never been paid. Just recently another fire broke out on the reserve and a call for urgent assistance went out to the township fire department. The assurance was given that the township would be paid for the call. After the call was completed and the fire put out the township was informed by the reserve that there was no money available to pay for fire protection. The cost of the call amounted to over $300 in wages for the men


and equipment. The township has now absolutely cut off the reserve from any more calls and thus the reserve is left without any fire protection whatever.
I feel it would be the better part of wisdom to have some kind of fire truck-a pumper, perhaps, even a used one obtained through war assets or something like that- put on the reserve to give the people there some protection. I know that the men on the reserve would be only too willing to man the engine. It would also give them a sense of pride in ownership in having a fire truck down there to look after their own fires.
I have been on the reserve several times. One bad feature of sending a fire truck to the reserve from the township of Brantford is that the bridge on the main road leading into reserve bears a sign indicating that the maximum load is eight tons. When a call comes through from the reserve we are asked to send down a fire truck costing $25,000, carrying several hundred gallons of water and weighing considerably over eight tons. If the bridge should collapse and the truck be destroyed the township would have to replace it because it seems impossible to obtain money from federal funds or through any other means for fire protection on the reserve.
I wish to speak now on behalf of the people on the reserve. They are in great need of a bridge across the Grand river at Onondaga. To get from the reserve to the eastern part of the city of Brantford or any point east of the city necessitates travelling through the downtown area of the city in order to get back to a point just across the river. A small part of the reserve is located across the river in the township of Onondaga. To travel from one part of the reserve to the other part across the river involves travelling several miles. I know the Indians have a certain amount of money for use in the construction and maintenance of roads and that sort of thing. The Ontario government contributes to the same extent it does to other municipalities in the province. They do not, however, have sufficient money in their annual road budget to provide a bridge over the river. I urge the minister and her officials to investigate the problem and to help the people on the reserve in this respect. I know anything that could be done would be greatly appreciated.
Before taking my seat I wish to emphasize again the first problem I raised. We would appreciate assistance from the federal government to meet the cost of the administration of justice in the city of Brantford.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if no other hon. member of the committee wants to

speak in more general terms I should like to say something about a specific matter concerning which the minister will not be surprised to hear me make some observations. There has recently been a great deal of publicity in the press about the activities of a certain corporation which is called Dimensional Investments Limited which, according to the information I have, bought for the sum of $6,521,946 a considerable part of the Sarnia Indian reserve.
The first thing I want to say about this matter is that for a somewhat smaller part of this reserve-there was not very much difference in the area and it was somewhat similar if my information is correct and, if it is not, the minister will correct me because she will have the facts-I had virtually completed a sale which was approved by the band in 1957 for the sum of $7,902,000. The sale fell through because the purchasers were not in the final analysis able to put up the money.
I may say that I was very relieved when that sale fell through because in the period during which it was being negotiated I had very considerable doubts about whether it was a wise thing to sell this property at all. I discussed this on more than one occasion with the officials. I said, here is this very valuable property on the edge of one of the fastest growing industrial communities in Canada, a community which is growing very largely because of expenditures made by the federal government during the war and which gives every appearance of continuing to grow very rapidly far into the future because of the very modern industries located there, industries such as synthetics industries, petrochemical industries, ordinary chemical industries for that matter, and others. I could not get it out of my head all through this period that we should not sell this land at all, that it was too valuable to be sold and that it should remain indefinitely a trust for the Indian band who occupied it.
I made up my mind when the sale fell through that if I had any further responsibility in the matter-I was relieved of that responsibility not long after-I would not again consent to any of these sales regardless of the price, that the proper way to deal with these matters was to create a trust and enter into long term leases so that the Indians could maintain a continuing interest in what was originally theirs.
It is true that according to land values at that time the sum of nearly $8 million we were proposing to sell this for was a very good price indeed. If the Indian reserve had been ordinary property on which taxes had to be paid no doubt I would have agreed
16, 1960	5037
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that it was a very sound business transaction. I am not questioning that at all. In retrospect I still think it was. But when we consider that Indian reserves are not liable to taxation and that it costs nothing to hold the property except any loss of revenue that there may be-the normal business considerations do not enter into these transactions in that particular respect; that is to say there is not the same overhead that has to be met in continuing to hold the land-I must say I am surprised that the present government should have been willing to agree to the sale of this land for approximately $1,400,000 less than the previous administration thought was a fair price for it.
I would question the transaction on that ground alone if there were no other circumstances connected with it; but the circumstances connected with this transaction, of which we do not know all yet, are such that one has even graver doubts, in the light of some of the other information that has been published and is uncontradicted. According to the best information I can get, the average price per acre paid for this land- the whole of this land that was sold to Dimensional from this reserve-was $2,093. This land was not all sold at exactly the same price per acre, and part of this land was resold to the Ontario Hydro almost before the ink was dry on the first contract for a price that works out to $6,944 an acre.
With respect to the part of the land that was taken by Hydro, the price received from Dimensional by the Indians was $2,000, so that by executing one contract and then reselling to an agency of the crown in Ontario this company made a profit of practically $5,000 an acre, which the Indians ought to have had if the land was worth that much. If that land was worth that much to the Hydro, a provident administration of the Indian affairs department would have got that much for it and they would not have sold it for less.
I am not saying it was worth that to Hydro at all; I am not saying that, because it is a matter that is not under the jurisdiction of this parliament and it is being discussed in another place before a royal commission, and I do not propose to argue for one minute about that. The Ontario Hydro may have paid three and a half times too much for this land, and the only defence the minister will have is to say that, because she sold it for $2,000 and promptly the Ontario Hydro paid $5,000 an acre more for it. That is two and a half times as much. So that either the minister sold it at a bargain or Ontario Hydro paid an extravagant price. We cannot get away from that.
5038	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The minister cannot plead, of course, that she did not know the Ontario Hydro wanted this land, or at least that her officials did not know that the Ontario Hydro wanted the land, because that is on the record. It is on the record that certain approaches were made by Ontario Hydro. The minister has made it very clear, if I remember correctly-and I am speaking here from memory, and if I am wrong the minister will correct me at once and I will make the correction-that the Ontario Hydro never came to her or to the department to have this land expropriated.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It also has been published that they did approach the government, the Indian affairs branch at any rate, with a view to discussing the possibilities of its being acquired by negotiation. At least, that is what I have been informed and if I am wrong about that I think it ought to be denied right away.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, there is some element of truth in that but what I should like to point out is that it was not a decision of the department, it was a decision of the Indians themselves. They refused to sell this parcel of land to Hydro because it cut right through the centre of the block of land of which they wished to dispose. It took the very best part right from the centre; it depreciated the value of the other property around it, and they said no, they wanted to sell the whole block and, as my hon. friend knows, there is some land in that particular block that is not worth very much.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Some of the land may not be worth very much for growing cherries. This land is in an area where all the land is worth a great deal because it is in a growing industrial area and it does not really matter much in a growing industrial area unless there is an Alp, and there are no Alps around Sarnia. It does not matter much whether it is good land or swamp land. With modern machinery you can soon fix that up; therefore, I am not very much impressed by that particular argument.
Whether the Indians were or were not willing to sell the land to Hydro I am not so sure; but if the Indians had been told that Hydro was willing to pay $7,000 an acre, when all they were going to get was $2,000 otherwise, they might have taken a very different view of it.
We also have had some very strange things taking place. I accept the word of the minister, and I accept her word on this point unreservedly and it is not just because I am required to do that by the rules of the house. The minister knows what I mean


when I say I accept her word unreservedly because a responsible minister in the legislature of Ontario has categorically contradicted the minister. I have in front of me an extract from the Toronto Telegram of June 9, 1959, in which Mr. Macaulay is reported as saying and I will read his exact words:
Hydro officials twice had been refused permission to expropriate by Colonel H. M. Jones, director of Indian affairs.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says "that is not true" and I say "I accept your word unreservedly". I want the plain implication of what she said to be understood. In other words, what she said is that what Mr. Macaulay said is not true. Let us not have any beating about the bush with respect to it. This was the Mr. Macaulay who was a responsible minister in another jurisdiction who authorized the payment of $7,000 an acre for this land that the minister had sold a few days before for $2,000 an acre.


Mr. Lennard:: No, the Indians sold it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the Indians did not sell it. No Indian land can be sold without the permission of the superintendent general.


Frank Exton Lennard: They agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman, if he wants to make one of his numerous speeches and contradict me, may do it.


Frank Exton Lennard: Not very often.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The fact is that no Indian land can be sold without the permission of the superintendent general, and the superintendent general has an inescapable trust, an obligation as a trust to see that to the best of his or her judgment a provident sale from the point of view of the Indians is made.
No one can have any doubt that if land that the minister sold one day was bought a few days later by a crown agency in another jurisdiction for a profit of two and a half times the price that there is something pretty odd looking about the transaction. I say the minister may have got all it was worth and Hydro may have been grossly extravagant. I am not admitting that; I do not think the minister got all it was worth because I think this whole tract of land-in fact a slightly smaller tract-was worth $8 million. The minister sold it for $6,500,000. Therefore, I do not think, apart from the question of Hydro at all, that this was a provident transaction.
But I do say that in the light of the information I have now put on the record, information that is publicly on the record, this appears to have been a very improvident

transaction. I say that the government and the minister, knowing that Hydro was interested in acquiring part of this property, should have explored to the full the implications of that and should have satisfied themselves before they sold this at a much lower price to someone else that in fact it was a wise thing to sell to anybody, and they should have found out what was the maximum price that Hydro would feel it necessary to pay for this land and let the Indians know that so that they would be in possession of all the facts before any sale was made. In the light of these facts which have not been contradicted anywhere it does seem to me that this was a very improvident transaction.
Then there are other features about which one or two questions have been asked recently. There is the question, for example, of the locatee to whom I referred in questions I asked on the orders of the day earlier this week. This locatee received options on two pieces of land for which he had location tickets. One of them contained a house which I think the minister said was worth $7,000. He received $12,000 for the whole property. The latest information I have is that the purchaser has had second thoughts about the matter, but until recently it was proposed that this man's house would be demolished if he had not removed it by the first of July. I am glad to learn that the purchaser has had second thoughts about that.
But this is another of the extraordinary features of this transaction that make it more difficult than ever to understand. When the minister interrupted me a few moments ago she said that one reason why the Indians did not want to sell this land to Hydro was that it would take a chunk of land out of the middle of the tract and make the remainder less valuable. That would be a lot more convincing if the minister had not agreed to a contract out of which the company can weasel if it wants to but under which it gets title to parts of the land as it pays.
It seems to me that that destroys the minister's argument that she could not sell part of the land without destroying the value of the rest because she has already given title to part of the land to this company. She has given them a patent which they in turn have transferred to someone else for one part of that land and before the whole tract is paid for.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think the hon. member should clarify that statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that this company is to pay $6J million for the whole property and that they have not paid it all yet.
16, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No. Just to put the record straight, may I say that they have paid about 40 per cent of the whole purchase price and they have patents for 10 per cent. If the deal falls through tomorrow the Indians get 90 per cent of the land back and 40 per cent of the money.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why should they get
patents on any until they have paid in full?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is the contract.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister's argument is sound that it had to be sold en bloc or that its value would be destroyed if any part of it was sold, I would say an agreement should not have been entered into to issue patents to any part of it until all of it was sold. I dare say the minister is going to say that I made the same kind of contract.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, the hon. member is saying that is my argument and it is not my argument; it is the Indians' argument.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says this is the Indians' argument.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I never made any such statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is quite right. I was quite unintentionally misrepresenting her and that is the last thing I want to do. But the minister, of course, has a responsibility which she cannot escape for permitting this sale to be made. If she thought, notwithstanding the views that the Indians had about it, that it was not a provident transaction she should not have made it. My argument is that on the face of the facts I have already alleged it is hard to see how anyone could possibly regard this as a provident transaction. I wish to make it very clear that I am not accusing the minister of anything except bad judgment. I think it was very bad judgment to be willing to sell for $6),- million in 1959 what a purchaser in 1957 was willing to pay $8 million for.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: He was not willing to pay it; in fact, he reneged on the deal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, and I might say that the proposed purchaser at that time appears to have been a rather more substantial person than this company with curious dimensions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: He was certainly very cautious.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps with reason;
perhaps he had something to be cautious about.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: He obviously had; he thought the price was too high.
79951-0-318
5040	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: The more one reads in the press of the inquiry into this operation the more one wonders what "dimensions" there were, but again that is in another jurisdiction and not in ours. The minister has a perfect right, if she can make a good deal, to sell something to scoundrels. There is no law against selling something to scoundrels. I am not saying these people are scoundrels, but she can sell to anybody as long as she can get the money and I admit she is getting a substantial amount of money. There is every probability she will get all the money.
But I still say that if the Indians took the view that the land should not be parcelled up, if they took the view it had to be sold en bloc to get the full value for it, then it was an improvident thing to agree to give title to any part of it until the whole transaction was completed. It certainly has affected the particular locatee about whom I raised questions earlier this week. I do not attach undue importance to this very small part of the whole transaction but it is important. This locatee had two pieces of property and he has lost title to one of them without any assurance that he is going to get paid for the other. He has the hope but there is no assurance of any kind. He argues, I believe, that he should be paid the full amount for both tracts before being expected to vacate the property.
As I say, this is just one aspect of this very strange transaction. It does seem to me that when the minister replies, as I feel sure she wishes to do, she should tell us first of all why she came to the conclusion that this property should be sold at all. In view of the fact that there had been a decline of a million and a half in two years in what anyone was presumably willing to pay for this property, would it not have been wiser to wait a few years more in that growing industrial community of Sarnia to see whether someone might not offer a better price? After all, it was a time of recession when the minister was making this sale. She might have waited for that boom to come along about which the Minister of Finance was boasting last December and the price might have gone up to $10 million instead of merely $6J million, to the great advantage of the Indians.
There does not seem to me to have been any very great urgency. It is not as though the Indian band at Sarnia was a collection of paupers. I have visited the reserve and most of these people are earning very good incomes. They are regularly employed and there was no urgent economic need to sell the land from the point of view of providing for the Indians. Therefore I think the minister


should tell us why she was willing to take a cut in price of a million and a half to authorize this sale.
I think she should also tell us the whole story, everything the department knows with respect to its relations with Hydro in the greatest possible detail. She should tell us when they first came to see the department and what relations, so far as there is any record, the department or the Indians had with Hydro. She should tell us just how it was, knowing the great interest that Hydro professed to have in this matter, this property was sold without any effort being made to discover whether Hydro was promptly going to pay a great deal more for part of the land. In view of the intimate relations which exist between Her Majesty's present advisers and the government of Ontario it should not have been hard to find that out before this transaction was completed. I think we should be told the whole story. I think we should be told why it was that the minister was willing to authorize a contract which would grant title to bits and pieces of this land before the whole transaction was completed.
Now, this does suggest that it was a real estate operation. I believe there are other features of it that would suggest the same thing. It does seem to me that we are entitled to be told why there was any necessity for agreeing to give letters patent, that is title, to any part of this property until the purchase price had been paid for the whole of it, particularly in view of the fact that the Indians, as the minister herself has said, felt that the sale of parts of the land would destroy the value of the other parts that were not sold.
There is the risk, of course,-there is still a risk because the whole purchase price has not been paid-that part of the price may not be paid and that the whole transaction may not be completed. The minister said a few moments ago-I want to be completely accurate about this-that title had been given to only 10 per cent of the tract of land and that she had received, on behalf of the Indians, 40 per cent of the purchase price. It could happen that 90 per cent of the land would come back to the Indians and they would have 40 per cent of the price, according to the facts she has stated. This would not invalidate the fact that the sale of a small part, and this part sold to Hydro was a very small part, according to the Indians, might destroy a great deal of the value of the rest of the land.
If I could recapitulate very briefly these three points on which I think the minister should give us a very full explanation, I would ask why there was any hurry to sell

for $6.5 million something which only two years earlier was said to be worth $8 million. Why not wait until the recession was over? Why not wait until values had appreciated a little more in the Sarnia area? There is no cost connected with holding this land, as I pointed out earlier. The position would not be the same as that of a private holder who would have to pay taxes and all sorts of other charges. This was Indian land and therefore it cost nothing to hold it. Why was there any hurry about this at all or any need to take a price so much less than a purchaser had been willing to pay and undoubtedly would have paid if there had not been some change in the economic climate?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You have no substantiation for that statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no substantiation for that statement, that is quite true. I cannot be quite sure. They were reasonably substantial people and they spent a lot of money before the transaction was on the verge of approval, so it is unlikely that these people would have done that if they had not had serious intentions. However, whether they had or not, it seemed to the previous administration that something like $8 million was a fair price for this property. If it was, then $6.5 million was certainly not a fair price for it.
The second point is, why was there not a complete investigation of what Hydro would have been willing to pay for this property before any sale was completed? The third question is, why was a contract made which permitted title to be given to bits and pieces of the property before the whole price was paid? Now, I think it is only fair to let the minister have a chance to reply to those questions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In the first place, the hon. member keeps harping back to this figure of $8 million which, so far as I am concerned, is a purely fictitious figure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister does not mean that there was not a contract?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, I do not mean that. Perhaps I should say fictitious valuation because at no time was one cent of money deposited as a guarantee or as evidence of good faith. Then the company, after holding up proceedings for a considerable length of time, finally reneged and refused to pay the $8 million. They said, we are not interested; it is not worth that much money.
Now subsequent investigations proved that the $6.5 million was a very fair valuation. We had no less than three separate and distinct valuations of that property, and every 79951-0-3l8i
16, 1960	5041
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration one reported that $6.5 million was an excellent valuation. In fact I do not believe any of the valuations came within several hundred thousand dollars of the $6.5 million. Moreover, the property, within any reasonable or foreseeable time, would not enhance in value at all.
The hon. member has asked why we did not explore to the full the possibilities. We did explore to the full every possibility that presented itself. I have taken the position, and I shall continue to take the position, that the Indians are entitled to say what they want to do with their own land, provided they all agree about it. The majority voted in favour of this proposition. It was explained to them fully what they were up against. Hydro at no time made an offer to my department, so far as I know, and at no time did they make an offer to the Indians. They had no offer in dollars and cents; they made no overtures which indicated they were prepared to pay any specific sum of money for any specific parcel of land. I draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that the actual parcel of land comprised about 173 acres, and even had they paid $5,000 an acre, as a supposition-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what they had to pay, $6,944.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: All right; even supposing they had paid that, the Indians would have received $865,000. They now have $2| million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They would have had the rest of the land, too.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: All right; what they wanted was money. I think they have a right to say if they want to sell their property if the deal appears to be a good deal. I think they have a right to say what they want to do with their own land. The hon. member talks about vesting the Indians with more authority to handle their own affairs; that they should be encouraged to become educated and take their place in the business and industrial community. Then he turns around and, in a deal like this, says no, the Indian does not know enough to decide what he wants to do with his own land.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that, and the hon. lady should not misrepresent what I said. I said that the hon. lady had a responsibility, a sacred trust, which she could not escape by saying the Indians wanted to do something with this land.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: So far as I am concerned, I discharged my responsibility with proper judgment and in good faith. I am not ashamed

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of this deal. I think it is a good deal. I think the Indians are well protected, and I have no apologies to make for it.
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, at the supper adjournment at six o'clock the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was drawing attention to the sale of a particular parcel of land and the minister in her reply misinterpreted, I think, what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was getting at; at least I got a different interpretation. The minister indicated that on the one hand the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was advocating a principle which I also advocated, that more control and authority should be given to Indians over their own decisions and activities; on the other hand he was asking for interference and control by the minister in some of the things which the Indians wanted to do, including in this instance the sale of the particular parcel of land.
As the act stands at the present time the minister, being a minister of the crown, in my opinion is the one person who should be administering Indian lands in trust for Indians, because land is held by the crown in trust for them. This also applied to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate when he was in the position the hon. lady is in at the moment.
Holding lands in trust indicates that that trust should be carefully looked after and the interests of the Indians protected in each instance. I am not going to get into a discussion with respect to the sale of this particular piece of land at Sarnia. However, I have had occasion to come across sales of land on Indian reserves in the past which would lead me to believe that perhaps the interests of the Indians have not been fully and properly protected, and perhaps in the initial instance this falls on the shoulders of the Indian protector or agent in explaining to band councils and to bands the effects which might accrue from the sale of any particular parcel of band land or land of a locatee.
I have had occasion to become interested in at least three particular sales which come to mind offhand over which difficulties have arisen after the sale had taken place, and this would indicate that the interests of the Indian had not been fully protected before the sale. If this continues it is leaving the impression with the Indian that perhaps

he should not even consider selling any additional parcels of land because he would end up on the short side of things when the sale is over.
As an example, one individual, a locatee on the Hazelton reserve, about ten years ago or so sold some land or agreed to sell land of his to the local school board for the purpose of building a school. As I understand it, the money was paid promptly by the school board to the Indian affairs branch and it took this individual, Mr. Ben Mackenzie, some seven years from the time the land was sold to the school board and the school board paid the money to the Indian affairs branch until he received payment. This of course raised considerable doubt in his mind as to whether his interests had been properly looked after.
Another instance occurred on the same reserve with another sale of a piece of land, this time to the department of highways of the province of British Columbia, involving a number of locatees. When I was in the provincial legislature, which would be perhaps 1954 or thereabouts, speaking from memory, I saw a copy of a letter and a list comprising the names of individual members of that band, the amount of land that had been used for highway purposes and the value of that particular land. It went on month after month after month stretching into two or three years before these particular payments were cleared up, even although the money was transmitted from the department of highways of the province of British Columbia to the Indian affairs branch in very short order. In fact I do not know whether it has all been paid yet. Incidentally, this involved the difficulty of assessing or discovering who the locatees were or who the heirs of the locatees were. In any event there was a long period of delay before the individuals concerned received payment for their particular pieces of land which had been surrendered for the purposes of the provincial department of highways.
Another recent instance about which I have had some correspondence with the department involves the Kitasoo band who for a period of ten years had leased part of their reserve to Todd Brothers canneries so that a cannery could be established there where the Indians could work. Then about a year or so ago an undertaking was made to sell this particular piece of land to Todd Brothers rather than to lease it. I think in this instance the Indian superintendent or someone did not fully explain to the Indians what the consequences might be flowing from the sale of this particular piece of land to the cannery, for this is what the Indians discovered afterwards and they are

now regretting that they undertook this particular sale. After the land had been sold outright, Todd Brothers closed up, and the canneries no longer exist. The Indians now find that they cannot work the land because they sold it. They cannot work in the canneries because they are shut down. And since they sold the land, they find they became subject to income tax while working for Todd Brothers, which was not the case before.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member unnecessarily, but does he have the dates of these transactions?


Frank Howard: I am sorry, but I have not. Offhand I would say this was this year, or perhaps a year ago, or maybe two.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not recall ever signing any agreement to sell. I would be interested to have the details.


Frank Howard: If the hon. lady would permit, perhaps some other hon. member may desire to take part in this discussion. If I may be excused, I think I can take this out of my files without too much difficulty and bring it back. I do not think there was an agreement of sale, but an arrangement to sell. I think I could get this out of my file so as to present it in a formal way to the minister with reference to the correspondence as well. That is all I have to say at this time. I will try to be back before the estimates pass.


Mr. Hellyer:: Before the supper recess the minister said, if I understood her correctly, that had the Indians sold the land directly to the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario they would only have received $865,000.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not exactly right. I said, had they sold it, and had they got the top offer. So I think it is slightly hypothetical.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think we should ask the minister for some explanation, because the price the hydro commission actually paid for 173 acres was approximately $1,200,000.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not $5,000 an acre which was the amount specified by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can clear that up. The figure was $6,944 an acre that the Hydro paid, and I said the figure the Indians got was about $2,000. The difference was $5,000 an acre. If you take it to be $7,000 an acre, my hon. friend's figure is about correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is the difference between $815,000 and $1,200,000 and that is a rather sizeable sum even for ordinary people. I do not think it is picayune.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I was just reading from the file of an order made by this house for the production of copies of all communications including memoranda of telephone conversations since January 1, 1958 between Ontario Hydro or any of its officials and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or any of her officials regarding the acquisition by Ontario Hydro of land on the Sarnia Indian reserve.
There are a number of points about this correspondence and one in particular about which the minister can perhaps furnish an explanation. On December 5, 1958 there was a letter addressed to the chief and councillors of the Sarnia Indian reserve signed by Mr. C. F. S. Tidy for the director of property which refers to an appraisal for the sale of 30 acres of the Indian land to the hydroelectric commission. Throughout this whole correspondence, from the beginning to the end, there is no mention of any amount of land larger than 30 acres in this period until December 5, 1958. The next letter of December 16, advises that the band had withdrawn permission for the proposed purchase of this 30 acres by the Hydro-electric commission. There is no further correspondence between the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the government of Canada until June 5, 1959, and then there is the letter addressed to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, University avenue, Toronto, Ontario. It is signed by Mr. D. Vogt for W. C. Bethune, chief, reserves and trusts, and reads in part:
Dear Sir:
The attached letters patent have been issued to your commission at the request of Dimensional Investments Limited, with respect to 173.82 acres on the Sarnia Indian Reserve.
The obvious conclusion here is that sometime between the previous December and June 5, 1959 when these letters patent were issued, the Hydro decided that they had to have, not 30 acres, as they had been negotiating for for some period of time, but 173.82 acres. What has not been explained is why there should have been this increase in the amount of land desired, and we should of course be very interested to know if the minister had any advance notice that the requirements of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario had been suddenly magnified from a mere 30 acres to 173 acres. This afternoon the minister again told us, echoing, if I may say so, words used by Mr. Macauley in explaining this whole situation, that the lands which had been transferred to Ontario Hydro were among the best lands on the reserve, prime lands and that they were therefore entitled to a prime price.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I object. I never said any such thing.
5044	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If you will check the record, Mr. Chairman, you will find that the hon. lady indicated this afternoon that these were preferred lands.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I never said any such thing. I said they cut right across the reserve and interfered with the sale of other lands. I never said anything about their value.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They cut right across the reserve. I accept the hon. lady's interpretation. They were lands underneath the existing transmission wires, including rights of way already owned by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not my problem.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Of all the land, what could be less useful for industrial purposes? What could be less useful than land immediately under hydro transmission wires? This was the reason the hon. lady gave for not having obtained a higher price.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It was not.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Selling off a parcel of this land, she said, would affect and depreciate the land which remains to the Indian band. In fact a very substantial proportion of these lands were under hydro transmission wires and, as I say, already owned by the hydroelectric power commission of the provincial government.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In that case we got a good price.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The price you got was not very good. Dimensional Investment got a good price, I would say.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We got a good price if the land was valueless, as you say.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister also told us that 40 per cent of the moneys have been received on this transaction and only 10 per cent of the land has been deeded; only 10 per cent has been released to the company, and yet half of this total money was that paid over by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario for which it got approximately 5 per cent of the total land.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is their problem.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: One other point is the financial ability of this company to complete this transaction. In reply to a question in the house the other day the minister said that the proof of the pudding was in the eating.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Who said that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. lady did.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I never did.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am paraphrasing.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I object. The hon. gentleman quotes me then when I object comes back and says he is paraphrasing me. Let the hon. member quote me precisely or not at all.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be very happy to do that in just a moment, Mr. Chairman, when we can locate the reference.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: When your secretary, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, locates it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I object and I think rightly so that a minister of the crown would sell or would allow to be sold $6 million or $7 million worth of Indian land to a company with a capitalization of $40,000 which had not filed any proof of its financial ability to complete the transaction.


Mr. Spencer:: What is strange about that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister told us-


Mr. Clancy:: No she did not. You are making that statement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -that all the documents had been tabled and they included no document whatsoever indicating the financial ability of this company to undertake a transaction of this size. The only possible excuse that the minister could have would have been the assurance that moneys were forthcoming, in fact some advance knowledge that this transaction with Ontario Hydro was about to take place because only a transaction of that magnitude-a $1,200,000 transaction with Ontario Hydro-would have provided the equity capital necessary for the company to have been in a position to close this transaction on the due date.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I really do not like to interrupt the hon. member but I wonder if he would mind explaining to the committee the relationship between capitalization and the financial assets of any company which is incorporated?


Mr. Nesbitt:: The hon. member does not know anything.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: What I would like the minister to explain to the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about; he does not know the difference.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -is how she would think a company which had a capitalization of only $40,000 and which had demonstrated no additional capacity-
Mr. Pallet!: Just answer the question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -to undertake a deal of this magnitude would be in a position-


Mr. Pallell:: The hon. member has just been scalped.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -to undertake and carry out the purchase of $7 million worth of land.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Capitalization has nothing to do with capital assets.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It had none.


Mr. Mcllraith:: That is the point; it had none in this case.


Mr. Grafftey:: Give the hon. member enough rope and he will hang himself.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In deference to the minister I should like to read the reply she gave me in the house the other day.


An hon. Member:: Page?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Be sure to read the whole statement; do not lift it out of context.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I refer to page 4952 of yes-erday's Hansard. On orders of the day I addressed a question to the minister in these words:
Would the minister advise the house why she allowed the sale of $7 million worth of land to a company with a minimum capitalization of $40,000 without proof of their financial ability-
At that point I was interrupted. The hon. lady's reply was:
Mr. Speaker, all I can say is the decision that was taken has been justified, in that the payments have been made up to date and the Indians are now in possession of nearly $2.5 million.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is right.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Surely, Mr. Chairman, when that statement is interpreted as meaning that the proof of the pudding is in the eating it is not being unfair to the hon. lady.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what it means.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sure upon reflection the hon. lady would agree with that. We would like the hon. lady to tell us whether or not she had advance knowledge that Ontario Hydro was going to purchase this amount of land from Dimensional Investments Limited and whether or not she had advance knowledge that the requirements of land would be increased from 30 to 187 acres and whether or not the knowledge of this proposed transaction was a factor in the decision to allow the sale of this considerable tract of land to a company which otherwise would have been financially unable to undertake it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answer, Mr. Chairman, is no. At no time was I aware that there was to be a sale. I knew that Ontario Hydro wanted land, of course, but at the time the
16, 1960	5045
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration sale was arranged there was a great deal of doubt as to whether Ontario Hydro was going to buy these lands or go all the way around the reserve.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. lady if she knew at the time the sale was made that Ontario Hydro had transmission lines running across its property already and had an easement for those lands?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have in my hand a plan which indicates that the transmission lines do not go right through the middle of the property. That is according to this diagram, if it is a correct one, and I must say it was published in a very reputable newspaper-


Gordon Drummond Clancy: The Start


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I have never seen anyone attempt to refute it. Far from being in the middle of the property the diagram indictates that the transmission lines are in one corner of the reserve. In the light of the additional information the hon. member for Trinity has given to the committee this evening to the effect that Ontario Hydro already had an easement over this property and already had a transmission line there, nothing could be more absurd than the statement the minister says the Indians made to her the effect of which was that they feared that to sell this part of the land to Ontario Hydro would destroy the value of the rest of the land because it is perfectly clear-and I must confess this is something I did not fully appreciate when I was speaking this afternoon-that the least valuable part of that land for industrial purposes would be that part over which Ontario Hydro already had an easement and a transmission line. In those circumstances it obviously would have a limited use for any industrial purposes as compared with other parts of the property.
It also seems to me very extraordinary that the department knowing that Ontario Hydro was interested in this matter should have consented to this sale of this property to a company which, without prejudging the verdict of a royal commission, does not seem to have been one of the best known, most obviously substantial and most reputable financial firms in the country. I believe it is extraordinary that the land should have been sold to the company without it having filed proof that it had a capacity to carry through this deal. It is very odd that immediately after it was sold an agency of the crown, the Ontario Hydro, which had previously had conversations with the minister's department, should promptly have bought this land. I
5046	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration would have thought that ordinary elementary prudence on the part of the minister would have dictated another course of action.
I assumed until I heard the things the hon. lady said about Mr. Macaulay this afternoon which may change that relationship that up until the time she said he was not telling the truth-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I said no such thing. The hon. member has paraphrased enough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady said that what he said was not true.


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: The hon. member read from a newspaper article.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I read from the report of the proceedings of the royal commission.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I said that a given fact was not true.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady said that what Mr. Macaulay said was not true. Maybe that is not saying that Mr. Macaulay was not stating the truth. If the hon. lady wants to split that hair she can split it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: At least she does not twist it as the hon. member does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But before the hon. lady gave him the character she gave him this afternoon I assumed she was on speaking terms with him and that she was also probably on speaking terms with the premier of Ontario although he did say about her in another matter concerning which I have a clipping which I have not read out of deference to the hon. lady that she did not know what she was talking about.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Go ahead and read it.


Mr. Aiken:: There are other people like that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest that in a grave matter of this nature involving the trust of the original inhabitants of this country and in the light of what has already appeared before this royal commission no hon. member of the Conservative party should regard it as a joking matter. The fact of the matter is that immediately after this considerable portion of land was sold to this real estate firm they promptly resold it to another agency of the crown, an agency of the provincial crown, for enough money to pay for something like one third of the whole cost of the whole tract; that is to say, they paid $1,200,000 odd for a tract that the minister sold for one fifth-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Your arithmetic is terrible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is quicker at arithmetic than I am only this evening, not this afternoon, as the hon. member for Trinity pointed out. But the plain fact of the matter is that we cannot get around the fact that either this land was worth $7,000 an acre, which is what Hydro paid for it, in which case the Indians ought to have got that $7,000 an acre and not somebody else, or it was worth only $2,000 an acre. Of course that is not the minister's responsibility, but Hydro is certainly wasting the money of the users of electricity in Ontario. That is not the business of this parliament. But I would have thought that before entering into this transaction with this company, which does not seem to have been very well known before this transaction began, the minister or her officials would have found out precisely what Hydro really wanted and what they were willing to pay for it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Why should we? We were not looking for purchasers?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady says she was not looking for purchasers.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is by far the most damaging statement the hon. lady has made-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Let hon. members consider the implications of that remark. The hon. lady is trustee for the Indians. She says she was not looking for purchasers. "The first fellow that came along and offers me a price for it I will give it to him."


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: She did not say that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what she means, when she says she was not looking for purchasers. She should have been, and she was negligent in her duties to the Indians, negligent in her trust, in not doing it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Just before the dinner recess the hon. member said he would not sell at any price. Now he tells me I should have been looking for a purchaser.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady should not have sold it at all if she was not looking for purchasers.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: So, I should have been looking for purchasers? Go on!


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. lady would not mind possessing her soul in patience or replying after I finish. If she has a correction to make I shall be very glad to have the correction made. I have tried very carefully not to distort any of the hon. member's remarks or observations. I have spoken

very slowly and I have asked at every stage for her to correct any statement of fact if it were wrong. I suggest that the hon. lady carry on the debate in the same fashion instead of seeking to distort the things I say.
I say, in my opinion, this land should not have been sold at all to anybody. But I go on to say that if it was going to be sold to anybody it was the hon. lady's duty to look for purchasers and get the best possible price, and these two positions are perfectly compatible.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We did.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I repeat that. I do not think the land should have been sold at all. That was the conclusion I came to and that was why I was relieved when the transaction that I agreed to for $8 million did not go through, because I had come to the conclusion while those negotiations were going on that it was a mistake to sell it at all and I do not think it should have been sold at all. But if it was going to be sold, then the minister had the duty-and she cannot hide behind the Indians-to see that the best possible price should be got for it. She did not get the best possible price for it because she sold it to those real estate operators who promptly resold a relatively small part of it for the difference between $2,000 an acre and $7,000 an acre, and if that is not a pretty exorbitant profit for a real estate operator to make on Indian lands in a week or two, well, it is really one of the most questionable transactions I think that has ever taken place.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, balderdash.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, well, of course, I suppose to the hon. lady and the people over there a mere matter of $5,000 an acre profit to some real estate operator is very small potatoes but it is not to the Indians.


An hon. Member:: They have not made that profit yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They have sold the land. Hydro has paid the money. The hon. member says they have not made that profit. There is one thing that seems to be very clear. Not only have they made that profit but this is what gave them the necessary funds to carry on the rest of the transaction, or a good part of it. The hon. lady gave no reply whatever to the point which I still think is the most fundamental point of all, namely that it was considered that this land was worth $8 million in 1957.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It was not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I considered it was worth $8 million.
79951-0-319
16, 1960
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is the hon. member a real estate evaluator?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. The evaluators of the department considered that this was a proper price.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, they did not.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The transaction was
recommended to me by the present officials and I agreed to it at $8 million, and two years later, in a recession, when the hon. lady sold this land for $1,500,000 less, there was no compulsion to sell it at all at that particular time. Even if Hydro had never entered into this picture at all it would have been a very questionable and imprudent transaction. When you think that no sooner is the contract executed than a part of it is resold at a profit on the original price of $2,000 an acre of $5,000 an acre it really does become a fantastic operation. It does seem to me that the hon. lady owes a different and better explanation than we have had yet.


Frank Howard: I wish to make reference to the subject matter of the Kitasoo Indian reserve No. 1, British Columbia, on which I wanted some information. I have a letter, and I find an error arose in connection with it, and perhaps inadvertently placed the hon. lady in the position of being responsible for this transaction, but such was not the case. It was not my intention to do anything like that. Other arrangements were made in which the interests of the Indians were not fully and properly protected, or they were not fully explained to them by whoever undertook the explanation. The letter which I have in my hand is dated June 3, 1960 from the director, and reads:
Re: Kitasoo Indian Reserve No. 1,
British Columbia and J H. Todd and Sons, Limited.
As requested in your letter dated May 31, I960, I attach a photostat copy of release granted to J. H. Todd and Sons Limited for a period of 10 years from January 1, 1941.
The land sale was a cash transaction and was not preceded by an agreement of sale. On receipt of the agreed purchase price of $21,000 letters patent were issued.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the hon. member know when they were issued? What is the date?


Frank Howard: I will refer to another letter which precedes this one, which is dated May 27, 1960. Part of the letter reads:
The sale was completed in accordance with the terms of the surrender and letters patent issued for the 15 acres of land on March 4, 1955. The $21,000 received was earmarked, at the request of the Indians, for use in connection with a water supply system.
5048	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I expect that clears up that point. I should like to reiterate that I do not think the interests of the Indians were protected in this particular sale. Whoever the person was who participated in the transaction as the liaison man, and presumably it would be the Indian superintendent at Bella Coola, he appears to have acted more as agent for J. H. Todd and Sons than he did for the Indians because it was not until subsequent to the sale and closing down of the cannery that the Indians realized the full impact of the sale of this land. As I said, they discovered that they not only do not have the land now but they have no opportunity to work in the cannery because J. H. Todd and Sons have arbitrarily closed the cannery and said that they are not going to operate it any longer.
In addition, the Indians have made another discovery. While working for J. H. Todd and Sons after the sale was completed they discovered that they were subject to the payment of income tax on the money received whereas they were not subject to income tax while the lease was in effect and the income was derived from use of their land. I only raise this case along with two instances involving individual locatees on another reserve to point out that in all instances the interests of the Indians were not properly protected. The results that would flow from the sale of their land were not thoroughly explained to them.
As I said in my opening remarks, I think it should be the policy of the department to attempt to promote leases and rentals, if that is desirable, rather than sales because a sale is such a final transaction. I suppose it would be possible for the Indians to buy back the land from J. H. Todd and Sons. Presumably that is so but the chances of its happening are practically nil. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate mentioned that it should not be the policy of the department to allow the Indians to sell their land. I endorse that view completely and I have always been of that opinion. I am only sorry that they did not have the same interest during the time that my friend and his colleagues were in office. Perhaps we will profit now by the experience gained in such cases as that on the Kitasoo Indian reserve to which I have referred.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like-


Jacques Flynn: I understand that the hon. member for Oxford wishes to put a question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It was with reference to the remarks that have been made by the hon.


member for Trinity, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and the hon. member for Skeena.


Jacques Flynn: I have recognized the hon. member for Churchill.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks with regard to one or two problems facing the Indians of our country that have been brought to my attention. Some of these problems I have observed myself and others have been brought to my attention by people living in northern Manitoba. At the outset I should like to express my appreciation to the minister, the director of the branch, Colonel Jones, and the Indian agents in northern Manitoba and their field men for the co-operation they have given me during the past three years. I should also like to tell the minister that the people of this area were very pleased that she was able to visit northern Manitoba last summer. She was not able to go to all the reserves and we hope that she will be able to come back to that area in the near future.
Personally I do not believe that the people of Canada generally realize what a tremendous amount of work is being carried out by the Indian affairs branch in an endeavour to solve the many problems with which the Indians are faced. One only has to make a few trips into these outlying areas with an Indian agent and meet the band leaders and councillors to come to a realization of just how much work the branch is doing to solve the many problems and, believe me, there are still many to be solved.
There is one specific problem very evident in the northern part of the country to which I should like to see serious consideration given. I may say that I brought a specific case to the attention of the director of the branch very recently. We were not able to do too much about it because possibly the matter was left too late but we will be forever faced with the same problem unless something is done. The problem has to do with the situation that arises when the Indian affairs branch and other departments such as northern affairs and national defence are planning the construction of establishments in outlying areas of northern Canada. I refer to the construction of hospitals, nursing stations, Indian residential schools and so on. In their construction one thing that must be provided is an adequate electric power supply. In many cases when such buildings are constructed they are located close to an Indian reservation or possibly a small settlement inhabited by people of the Indian race.

When planning the power requirements for these establishments I should like to see consideration given to making a preliminary survey of the possibility of providing for the electric power requirements of the Indian people who live adjacent to the hospital, school or whatever the building is. I realize that when plans for power installations are planned an effort is made to arrive at a reasonable estimate of how much power may be needed by the particular building in the future and allowance is made for that but I cannot see why it would not be possible to make allowance for additional power for the Indian people living adjacent these areas. If provision is not made for such power when planning these government establishments the people in these areas will be a long time before they get the benefit of electric power.
The reason I bring this matter to the attention of the minister at this time is that it is my understanding that up until this time it has been the feeling of the department, possibly a reasonable one, that to do what I have suggested would create a tremendous amount of extra work for them which is not actually in their field. It is claimed that it would create work in making surveys of the necessary extensions of power, that it would create an obligation on the department to establish the rates to be charged and would also create obligations with respect to the distribution of the power and collection of accounts.
That does seem like quite a large assignment to give any government department but I think there is a good solution for that, especially in Manitoba, and I do not see why the same solution could not be applied in other provinces confronted with the same problem. I have very good assurance from the Manitoba power commission that they would welcome the opportunity of purchasing excess power from any source if there was a reasonable market for that power in the vicinity. They have told me they would be quite willing not only to purchase the power but to arrange for its distribution and to set the rates and collect the accounts. With such an arrangement having been suggested by the Manitoba power commission, I think that many of the problems are overcome.
I should like to say once again that generally government departments do not take some of these things into consideration and do not realize that they have an obligation, as government departments, to the people of Canada living in these outlying areas to bring to them some of these amenities of life. If we do not do that, we are not doing our job. I know that this is a problem which exists all over the northern part of our country. I believe it is only reasonable to assume that most 79951-0-319J
16, 1960	5049
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of the provincial authorities who are operating hydro systems and power commissions would be willing to go along on the same basis as the Manitoba power commission has done in at least two different places in northern Manitoba. At The Pas Indian reserve the Manitoba power commission is supplying power, and at another point, Cranberry Portage, the Manitoba power commission is purchasing power from a national defence establishment and selling it to the residents of that community. If the Manitoba power commission had not adopted this attitude, the people in many of these outlying areas would be waiting many years for this service which we in the urban areas accept as our birthright.
There is one other problem I should like to mention. Some of the hon. members referred to welfare cases today and said they were pleased to see the department was inaugurating a policy of paying by cheque or by cash instead of in kind. This seems to be very welcome news. I may be wrong in this, but after visiting many of these reserves and seeing the tremendous amount of welfare benefits being paid out in some cases and the amount of work of a minor nature which needs to be done on the reserve, I am wondering if these people should not be paid for doing the work. In this way a lot of the small jobs could be completed around these reserves by day labourers, and I cannot see how it would cost so much more. I do believe the people would be happier, if work for wages were available instead of relief or welfare for those people in fit condition to do the work which needs to be done.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have just one brief remark to make, Mr. Chairman. There has been some reference on several occasions during the debate this evening to people misleading the house. I should like to direct my remarks to the remarks made by the hon. member for Trinity. I fully realize the hon. member for Trinity is not a lawyer, but he is eminent in other fields. I think there was one thing the hon. member for Trinity kept saying repeatedly and that was that this company which purchased this land from the Indians in Sarnia had a capitalization of $40,000. The inference that anyone who is not conversant with the technicalities of corporation law would draw is that the only assets of the company were $40,000. This is most certainly not the case.
It is customary, in the province of Ontario when a company is incorporated to incorporate with a capitalization of $40,000. It simply means that the par value of the authorized shares to be issued then or at some time in the future is $40,000. It has no relationship whatever to the actual assets of the company. I am sure the hon. member must know that.
5050	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration He has had some experience in corporate dealings, I understand, and if indeed he does know it, the only conclusion can be that he attempted to mislead the committee. If he did not know it, then he should be more careful about what he is saying, because I believe it is a clear attempt to mislead the committee.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the contrary, I was attempting to lead the committee. The matter of capitalization, as the hon. member for Oxford has just said, is not necessarily indicative of the total assets or net worth of the company. This was a newly incorporated company, however, which had no other assets. The total of its assets was limited by the extent of its capitalization, under the law of the province of Ontario, so that its assets were equal to its total capitalization or something less than that. No financial documents whatever were filed by the company, as has been ably demonstrated, to indicate it had any assets whatever, even within the $40,000 of its capitalization or over and beyond that. I am surprised that a learned counsel would not be able to determine this for himself. I hope I will not have to retain him to do legal work for any company with which I am connected.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is quite clear you do not know what you are talking about.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it is quite irresponsible for the minister to authorize the sale of millions of dollars worth of land held in trust for an Indian band to a newly formed company with a capitalization of $40,000 and with no demonstration of assets, even to that extent.
I should like to ask the minister if, in fact, March 14 was the final date for completion of this sale. I hope that is the correct word, and if it is not the hon. member for Oxford will fill me in with the correct one.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: March 14 of what year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 



Of 1959.

Ellen Louks Fairclough: The agreement was signed on March 14, 1959. The total sale price must be paid within two years time, which means it has about nine months yet to run. In addition to the sale price, there have been adequate safeguards incorporated into the agreement and the Indians receive interest on their funds in addition to the price that was agreed upon.
There have been a lot of very peculiar statements made here tonight, and between the pseudo real estate valuators who cannot even add and the financial experts who do


not know the difference between capitalization and assets we have had ourselves quite a field day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suppose the hon. lady could set the record right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, I cannot be bothered. I am here in my capacity as a minister to defend my department. I am not here to give lessons in economics and real estate valuation to hon. members.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady has said that she is not here to give lessons in economics. Nobody wants lessons in economics, but we are entitled in this committee to an accounting of the business of this country, particularly when it is business done in trust for the original inhabitants of this country, and that is what the hon. lady refuses to give; indulging in innuendo and insinuations instead of dealing with facts.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: All right, Mr. Chairman, I shall do my best to put the record straight. However, I cannot be held responsible for those who will not listen or will not understand. Back in the time when my hon. friend was charged with the responsibility of this department he tells us that he had an offer of $8 million for this land.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Approximately $7,902,000.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: All right, we will not quibble over $100,000. He never got one plugged nickel, not one.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Ultimately the people who were supposed to have given this offer withdrew, after having held up the sale of the land for a considerable time to any other prospective purchaser, or if they did not, the minister did in the hope of getting $8 million. They decided on one of two things; either that they did not have $8 million or that the land was not worth it.
In the meantime the Indians, having been encouraged by the minister to think there was a sale going on, went out and bought sundry things-automobiles, deep freezes, electric refrigerators, washing machines, all manner of things, and got themselves well and truly in debt. And the sale fell through.
Ultimately another group came along and offered to buy this property, and I think it is no secret that their first offer was considerably lower than the price at which the agreement was drawn up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would hope so.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member would hope it was lower?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I hope the hon. lady would get more than the first offer.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have not been in business for more years than I like to admit without learning a few tricks from the trade.
In any event the Indians, quite properly, were concerned about their financial obligations. They had no intention of hiding behind the protection offered them in the act and failing to live up to their financial commitments. They had been led to believe that they had a proper sale coming up. This new company came along and it made an offer. We turned that offer down. We took the precaution of engaging the services of an independent evaluator who went into this situation and gave us a full report, not only on the immediate value of the land but its potential having regard to other land which had been sold in the vicinity, having regard also to other land that was available for sale in the vicinity and taking into account the projected rate of industrial progress which was anticipated. Finally we received from them an evaluation and that evaluation was $5,500,000.
We were not satisfied completely with that so we asked the officials of the Veterans Land Act if they would give us an evaluation quite independently, without any reference to the firm which had made an evaluation and with no consultation with them. As a matter of fact they did not know who the firm was that had made an evaluation. They came up with a valuation of $5,600,000. So I think, Mr. Chairman, if we got $6,500,000 for the Indians we did pretty well.
I have no intention of arguing any case for a subsequent buyer, whether they made offers, whether they wanted anything, what they were willing to pay, what they had already done, or anything. That is no concern of mine. The thing which is my concern is that I get for the Indians the best possible price I can get having regard to the value of the land and its potential, and I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that that is what I did do. Not only did I get them the best possible price but I protected them under the terms of this contract and, as I have said before today, if this contract falls through tomorrow, if perchance the company concerned defaults in its payments, the Indians will have received something in the nature of $2,500,000 and will have sold about 10 per cent of the land which was for sale.
I cannot understand what the hon. member is talking about. I would think that there
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration is some kind of a herring being drawn across the path here. I have not quite discovered what it is.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A herring from Toronto.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think the hon. member is right there. I have an idea that the criticisms which have been directed at this department are not intended for this department at all but are intended for some other place. As far as I am concerned I think I did a good job for the Indians. I think I made a good deal for them, and as I said immediately before adjournment at six o'clock I have no apologies to make to anyone for this particular sale.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. lady has just told us again that she got the best possible price for the land, but she did not. A small part of the land was in fact sold approximately simultaneously for $5,000 an acre more than the hon. lady got for it.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes.


Richard Devere Thrasher: Would the hon. member be prepared to pay $5,000 an acre for the balance of the land?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: From what I know of the situation I would not want an acre of it at any price.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, did I hear the hon. member say that he would not want an acre of it now at any price?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is exactly what I said. That is not the particular type of land development in which I am interested. The hon. lady told us earlier that she did not know that Ontario Hydro was interested in buying a larger acreage of this land.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not true, I did not say that. I said that I did not know how much they wanted, which is true.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: But she knew there were intermediate negotiations being carried on during this period between December, 1958 and June, 1959; is that not correct?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not exactly correct. We knew that Ontario Hydro was interested in acquiring some land; I could not help but know that. After all, they had their power lines over this land, as has been said, but at no time was any offer made to any department. So far as I know no offer was made in dollars and cents to the Indians, but I will not answer to that completely.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, this explains something of which we were not aware
5052	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration earlier this evening. The hon. lady did know that these intermediate negotiations were being carried on. Surely her curiosity would have been such that she would have made an effort to determine not only the extent of the lands required by Ontario Hydro but also what they were willing at that time to pay for them. Did the hon. lady know, for instance, that three days before the completion of the sale Ontario Hydro paid over the approximately $1,200,000 to Dimensional Investments Limited which was held in trust for several days pending completion of the sale, the funds of which were in fact turned over to her as trustee for the Indian band?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The ultimate disposition of lands is not my concern. The hon. member is a merchant, or supposed to be, and if I sell him a gross of articles it is no concern of mine what he sells a dozen for.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that deserves a little comment. The hon. member for Trinity has shown us something which I did not know myself until this evening. Apparently three days before the minister sold the land the company she sold it to had already sold a part of it for $5,000 an acre more than she sold it for. The cheque of Ontario Hydro was delivered to Dimensional, according to this information, on March 11 and the minister did not sell until March 14, and Dimensional used the $7,000 an acre from Hydro to pay the minister $2,000 an acre. If she thinks it was not her business to know what kind of customer she was dealing with, I think we ought to have another minister as a trustee for the Indians.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, obviously the hon. member has not a clue what he is talking about. I do not have any police force to go out and find who is doing what or who is-


John Whitney Pickersgill: You do not speak to the Ontario government.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Certainly not; I run my department. I do not meddle in other people's affairs, and I think that is a good rule for many people to follow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite willing to leave it there and let the public decide.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think you had better.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The only people to suffer were the Indians.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They did not suffer one little bit; don't worry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Five thousand dollars an acre.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, to


Mr. Fisher:: In Ontario we have all been waiting for a crown prince to emerge behind Hon. Leslie Frost and there is speculation of the position being taken up by the Hon. Robert Macaulay. It would be a tragedy if the minister were to dynamite the prospects of that energetic and able young man.
I wanted to ask the minister a specific question. An indication was given to me last year in answer to a question that a good deal of Indian land is going to be brought under forest management. I should like an indication as to the pace at which this plan is to proceed. The department now has two foresters, and forest consultants are being acquired. I should like to know something about these consultants, their experience and qualifications, and I should like to know especially about the plans in the province of Ontario. I should also like to know more about the amount of consultation which goes on between the provincial department and the minister's department. I personally have brought the replies of the minister to the attention of foresters in different parts of Ontario and they still feel that the plans are inadequate to meet the needs of Indians having regard to the type of land that is available, and especially from the point of view that the federal government has a very able forestry branch service.
The next point I wanted to make concerns the appropriations and plans of the department through the Indian agents for working with the Indians in the light of the fact that they are going to have the vote. I know the whole question of the Indians having a vote becomes a problem for the political parties and the general organizations. I have already pointed ou. to the minister that we have a situation in Ontario where many of the northern Indians cannot read or write and are therefore particularly open and vulnerable to suggestions by those who are closest to them. I do not want to make a blatant accusation that Indian agents in the part of the country I represent are agents for the Conservative party, because I cannot prove it, but I will ask the minister to look at the statistics in areas where Indians have the vote in elections and ask her whether doubts would not occur in her mind about the impartiality of Indian agents in those areas. Now that Jndians do have a vote in this part of Canada I should like to have an assurance from the hon. lady that instructions will go out to the agents so as to remove the possibility that the agents themselves or the immediate families may be influencing the vote.


William Heward Grafftey: You had better go to Saskatchewan and find out what your party does there. ...	I .	. '	..*	;


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not know about Saskatchewan, but I know about my own constituency. The statistics hit you right between the eyes. If you get a situation where in one poll one party gets 200 votes and the other party gets 5 votes, suspicions are bound to occur, and all I am asking of the minister is that she should look into it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not know if the hon. member would like me to reply now, but the superintendents are, of course, federal employees. They are engaged on the terms of the civil service commission and I cannot see what possible connection their employment has with a provincial election.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What 1 am bringing up with the minister at the present time is that these gentlemen are, as she knows, men of influence among the Indians and I am just suggesting that if we look at the provincial pattern in my constituency we have an indication that the Indians are being subjected to some very close influence, because they all vote for a Conservative candidate.


William Heward Grafftey: That is so much nonsense and you know it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has interjected "that is so much nonsense and you know it". All I know is that he is full of nonsense if he cannot get on his feet and put up a better argument than that. I do not happen to have some of the advantages which the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has, but I am trying to do my best to bring up a point in which I believe and to explain why I take the attitude I do. Take Lansdowne House in the north where the population is 99 per cent Indian. They are all voting one way and when Indian agents are moving around there one has to have suspicions. I am just presenting those suspicions to the minister and suggest that in view of the pattern we are getting at election times she should issue warnings to her agents and see that no one has an opportunity to exert influence of this kind.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Under the terms of the Civil Service Act any civil servant who engages in partisan activities is subject to punishment. I cannot think of an answer to the hon. gentleman's allegation unless it is that the Indians are further advanced than we thought they were. But I can assure the hon. member that as to federal employees engaging in provincial partisan activity, the staff are in my opinion too smart for that. I do not think they would do it. If the hon. member has proof to the contrary other than the odd coincidence of figures I will be glad to look into it.
16. 1960	5053
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister can call it coincidence if she cares to. Another question I want to ask the hon. lady is an explanation of the situation at McDiarmid reserve and what the plans are there and what future efforts are going to be made if any to get the Indians at the north end of lake Nipigon and that country that feeds into there into an advantageous a situation as the Indians at McDiarmid are going to be in. We are pleased with this particular method. The Indians themselves are very satisfied, but they are concerned about their friends, relatives and other Indians at the other end of the lake and toward the Hudson Bay watershed where many of them are attracted by that kind of development just as they were from the other side of the lake.
I wondered whether there was any plan to move these people into the same kind of improved conditions. I have had letters from people in the region north of the lake-tourist agents and people like that-saying that the condition of the Indians especially in midwinter and early spring is much more serious than it has been in the lower part of the lake.
I read with interest as I am sure many hon. members did an announcement in yesterday's paper to the effect that Bishop O'Grady plans to open a new school. Despite the fact it will be partially supported by Roman Catholic church funds it will be a non-denominational school. I am interested in the long range implications of this announcement. This seems to be a break with tradition. We would appreciate an explanation of this from the minister. Does this herald a larger move of this nature in the educational field?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: With regard to the McDiarmid situation and in fact the whole situation in northern Ontario my department is presently in negotiation with the province of Ontario with regard to lands and locations and so on. I can assure my hon. friend that we are most anxious that these people shall have proper facilities not only for their own comfort but for the education of their children. We cannot move any faster than our co-operative efforts with the province will dictate. However, we are not lagging at all and are proceeding as rapidly as we can.
With regard to Bishop O'Grady I find it difficult to express myself because the bishop is doing such a magnificent job. As a matter of fact he puts such pressure on the department at times that we are hard put to it to answer his demands. We know that he is working for the good of the Indians and is doing his best under difficult circumstances. In so far as co-operation with the department is concerned his situation is not different from that of anyone else. Where there is an
5054	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration effort on the part of a denominational institution to educate Indians whether in an entirely Indian school or an integrated school the department picks up the tab for the Indians' share. I must say again that I think Bishop O'Grady with his tremendous enthusiasm is doing a wonderful job for the Indians in British Columbia and I should like to have that on the record.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That seemed apparent from the story but I was interested in the fact that the school although under church support would be non-denominational. Is this the forerunner of a broader policy? Is it intended to have the non-denominational aspect of the school apply only to certain grades?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is not our school but a church school. How it is administered is entirely up to the group concerned. I find it intriguing. I did not see the press release and can speak only from a general knowledge of the bishop's splendid work.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, like many other hon. members I have a great many Indians in my constituency although I must confess I have not had the-what shall I call it-coincidental electoral problem to which my friend the hon. member for Port Arthur referred a moment ago. However, as the minister knows an educational problem has existed for many years among the Indians in Algoma East. I am not going to speak about that at the moment because I know the department has done its best in that regard.
Perhaps before this item passes I may be permitted to express my appreciation for the courtesy and thoughtful consideration given by the officers in connection with every request I have made of them. In view of the fact that a moment ago I provoked the minister into a somewhat extreme expletive perhaps she may permit me to include her in that comment because the hon. lady has always been very courteous in dealing with the requests I have made of her.


Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister will be well aware that we have a file of correspondence going back over several years relating to the problem of Indians who are not permanently settled in Red Lake in the northern part of my area but are sort of semi-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Transients?


William Moore Benidickson: They are becoming
assimilated in part. This is a development which I think should be encouraged because we have mining employment and other types of employment which are more advantageous than the very uncertain type of livelihood


that is available a few miles beyond Red Lake where they simply rely on trapping and fishing.
As I said, my file must be a foot thick and it goes back some five or six years. It involves discussions with the board of education of the province because Red Lake is not on reserve territory. It was always my understanding that the Indian affairs branch would welcome a pilot program such as has been urged by the citizens of Red Lake particularly represented by the chamber of commerce under which the buck would not be passed continually between the province and the federal government, the province taking the attitude that these people are basically a federal responsibility and the federal government saying that for a good part of the year the people live off the reserve and thus should be the responsibility of local school board or the province of Ontario.
I have always been assured that the department was willing to make a contribution to what I have called over the years a bridge program under which there would be encouragement for these people to move a few miles south and get employment where industrial developments that have gone north are located. They are the people who should be attracted to employment of this kind but the buck continues to be passed.
We have public schools and separate schools but a very few Indians have been taken into the two schools. I have read speeches of the recent minister of education of the province of Ontario wherein he has said that he feels the Indians of northern Ontario are the responsibility of the province and this responsibility could be taken over by the provincial government. However, we are not getting very far.
I wish now to mention a development of which we should be thoroughly ashamed. Because these children have been neglected a United States church organization, a missionary group-they regard this as a foreign mission-has come in to the civilized northern part of our province and established a school. We should be ashamed of ourselves at having a United States missionary group come in to look after our Indian children. The Amish church missionary group have been running a marvellous school there for four or five years. There is no question of the need for this. Everyone else was washing their hands of the responsibility for these children. The group has carried on the school without assistance from the province, the town or the federal government. I believe the normal capacity of the school is about 40 or 50 children.

In addition to that if the children become neglected as they sometimes do-the parents push oft to their former pursuits in trapping and fishing and leave Red Lake perhaps when employment is not steady for them-they even offer them board and lodging. I believe that compensation has recently been established with respect to the boarding where the parents have gone back to the reserve. I feel that this institution deserves some consideration.
I do not think adequate pressure has been put upon the school authorities of the province, first, to make sure that the truancy laws in so far as Indians are concerned are enforced. They have been ignored, in my opinion, and in consequence if the parents do not deliver their children to school they simply sit there on the outskirts of the Red Lake community with nobody taking responsibility for them and they receive no education. I must give credit to the department in that where it was felt that we could look with confidence to the parents residing fairly steadily at Red Lake a number of the children have been placed in residential schools to the south. This is very much appreciated by me particularly and has relieved the school situation in Red Lake, but it is a very bad situation when everybody says it is somebody else's job.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member is quite right. It has been a source of considerable concern to the department. The remote areas, of course, bring their own problems and while we could not exactly call Red Lake remote in the sense that some of them are, nevertheless it is not close to any large municipality. However, I am glad the hon. member mentioned it. We have put as many Indians as we could in residential schools. We have done our best also to try to impress upon the municipality and the province what their responsibility is and I do hope we can resolve this difficulty before too long.


William Moore Benidickson: Three or four years ago it was indicated to me that as a token of our interest, even though technically those people were not residing on Indian reserves-this was a unique situation-on a voluntary basis for a period of years-I had a term of about five years in mind-with the idea of encouraging the getting to grips with this situation, the department would make a nominal contribution, perhaps what would be the equivalent of the local school board contribution in an unorganized territory, which is about 5 per cent of the over-all cost. Is the department still willing to assist in this matter by making a contribution of that kind?
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is true, that we agreed to that contribution but unfortunately the necessary co-operation was not forthcoming from other quarters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister seems to have a hard time with the government of Ontario.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister a question or two, but first of all I hope she can give me some answers to questions asked earlier. I should like to ask her two specific things. One thing which disturbed me, and I suppose the minister, was an accident which occurred last year north of the Winnipeg river when a helicopter crashed. A number of people lost their lives. I know enough about the background of the matter to realize that it was an accident, but there was the question of the necessity of flight at night. We have a long tradition up north that a flight becomes a mercy flight only when it is decided how important the emergency is. I should like to know something of the instructions the doctors have in certain areas as to how important an emergency is?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is not under my department. Doctors operate under the Department of National Health and Welfare. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the house today when I made my initial statement, but I dealt at some length with the forestry situation. I think the answers to his questions are incorporated in that statement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am sorry, I was not in the committee at the time. The minister says that the question of the accident does not come under her department. The point is, as I understand it, two Indians lost their lives in this particular accident. The need, or the urgency, must be spelled out to a certain degree by members of her department or by the Indians themselves. I should like to know where the responsibility lies. We do not want the occurrence of another accident like this one if, as I understand it, to a considerable extent the accident was caused by flying the helicopter at night. There should be some liaison between the two departments that would control these things because mercy flights are all very well but if you are going to risk life to that extent it becomes quite a gamble.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would agree with the hon. member but I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, the accident to which he refers is not one with which I am familiar. I would have to have more information on it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The next question I wish to ask the minister has to do with something
5056	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that has been brought to my attention by people who are attached to forestry companies. The minister knows that whole blocks of land all across the area of northwest Ontario contain trap lines. The minister also knows that the provincial government and the department of lands and forests, I believe, have a number of trapping areas in which Indians get preference. I understand from foresters and other personnel of the bush to whom I have talked that Indians are falling away from these particular jobs, or are tending to let trap lines go. I know that in one particular belt 40 or 45 miles wide, where there are a number of trap lines laid out, I heard last year no one is trapping there at all. I was just wondering whether there is an accelerating pattern right across the north of Indians getting out of trapping and failing to keep going those licensed trap lines set out for them by the provincial government? What is the trend?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The majority of them are operating their trap lines. I think this must be an isolated incident. Again, if I had the particulars of the specific locality and the particular line referred to I might be able to get some information for my hon. friend. But in general the Indians are most anxious to maintain the trap lines so long as they get return from them. I cannot give an answer to the specific line because I do not know.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will be specific. In the minister's annual report I find the following:
Trapping is still a very important factor in the Indian economy and will be for many years yet. This type of work, arduous though it may be, is accepted by those Indians who have not been in close touch with industrial development.
The point is, I could point out to the minister that my constituency contains almost one third of all Ontario. This might explain to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi my interest in the Indian vote. You have that large territory, and it is a considerable element in the matter, all the way from Hearst on the east to Sioux Lookout on the west, which is a stretch of over 365 to 370 miles in breadth. I understand that on the north line of the C.N.R. almost all the bush has been taken up and held by the large organizations such as Marathon, Kimberley-Clark, St. Lawrence Corporation, Abitibi, and so on. These firms are operating in this area. I know they are tending to pull Indians away from the trap line. I wanted to know what the trend was, whether anything can be done to keep the Indians in this kind of work or whether we are moving to the stage where in our part of the country we can rule out Indians as trappers?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I would have to check the particular case. I do know that a great many Indians up in that area are working for those companies.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Whether they have time to maintain trap lines also is problematical, but I would be very glad to get a report from the superintendent and give the hon. member a detailed report of what is the situation. I can assure him that in the country as a whole the Indians are not losing their interest in trap lines where they still get results from their operation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Economic development of Indians-
60. Operation and maintenance, including an amount of $5,700 for grants to promote Indian agriculture, handicrafts and economic enterprises generally, $938,688.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before this is carried I should like the minister to bring us up to date very briefly on this economic development.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We have recently installed as head of the department Mr. Battle whom the hon. member will remember as one of our very valuable staff members, and we now have eight officers working across the country with two more just about to commence operations. Like the hon. member, I am keenly interested in this matter. I think it is a most important part of our administrative work and one that I think is catching on. It is certainly the case that the more employers who use Indian labour the more enthusiasts we have. There is an age-old prejudice involved. We do not know where it got started but it has existed for a long time. However, as employers use Indian labour they find it is a very valuable and worth while move. With the way the division is growing I think we will be able to report very tangible results in a short time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must congratulate the minister on the appointment of Mr. Battle for whom I have the highest regard.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister says that she has eight officers. Are any of them working in northern and northwestern Ontario?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We do have an officer working in that area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister may be aware that in Longlac there is a fair every fall and a certain amount of support for the fair is received from the Department of Agriculture. I understand they are not

getting any support from the minister's department, but since there is an Indian reserve in juxtaposition to the community and a large number of Indians take an interest in the fair I wonder whether it would be possible for the branch to make a grant to support the fair and perhaps give the Indians an opportunity to play a bigger role in the community.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We will be glad to look into the matter. Our man works out of North Bay. I am told that in our vote we have $200 specifically earmarked for that particular fair.


Mr. Hardie:: I think this division is not only attempting to place Indians in positions in industry but also assisting Indians who are still interested in trapping and hunting. For instance, I talked to Mr. Jones last year about getting the Indians in the Fort McPherson and Good Hope areas of the Northwest Territories back into country that has not been utilized for trapping and hunting for many years. He said at that time that money had been set aside and would be spent last year. I am wondering whether the money was spent last year on these projects and whether there is money in the estimates this year to carry on these projects.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There was money spent last year and we have money this year. I can give the hon. member the figures in a moment if he is interested. We have to look them up.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister made a reference to North Bay. I think all the officials know it is an old story with me that I continue to be very disappointed at the failure to recognize that North Bay is many hundreds of miles from the part of the country I represent. I think it is 800 or 900 miles away, and in my view it is just nonsense to think that we can operate any more efficiently on a decentralized basis with authority in North Bay than we could if Kenora, the district north of Kenora and the Rainy river district communicated directly with headquarters. It is not the fault of the people at North Bay. It is the matter of the distance and that fact has not been appreciated by somebody in setting up the organizational chart.
In my view North Bay simply constitutes another place where maill is held up because it eventually has to go to headquarters anyway. There are simply not enough days in the few summer months when construction is carried on for the people at North Bay to take the time to travel 800 or 900 miles to Kenora. Many items have to wait to receive the stamp of approval at North Bay before they are sent to headquarters for a further
16, 1960	5057
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration stamp of approval. In my opinion the North Bay office is just another post office that holds up things. I feel that geography is being ignored and that if we have to have a decentralized organization there certainly should be a regional office much nearer to the field. I referred to the distance of 800 or 900 miles. We have no high school accommodation and our Indian children have to be sent 800 or 900 miles for a high school education. Separation from families on a basis of that kind is completely unsound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Education-
62.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $19,578,651.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to hold up my own estimates but I should like to tell the committee about a very interesting experiment that we are initiating this year. I have long felt that there is tremendous artistic talent of many kinds among our Indian children. As hon. members know, we have had a scholarship fund but heretofore scholarships have been awarded from the fund in the scholastic field and for vocational training, nursing and so on.
I became very much interested in the possibilities for artists, musicians and others who might have special talent which would not be covered particularly by the usual definition of scholarship. I am happy to say that among the 17 scholarships awarded in the past year there were two granted to artists and two to musicians. I was very pleased about this and I got in touch with some friends of mine who are in the music business. The outcome of our negotiations is that we have made arrangements with the Royal Conservatory of Music, and with their very generous co-operation their examiners, when they are in the field from coast to coast, will adjudicate for us with respect to individual students who are recommended to us at the local level as having particular talent.
By this means we hope to encourage and bring forward young people with exceptional talent at a time when encouragement and training will do them some good. We are also exploring the art field in the same manner. I thought the committee might like to know that a special effort is being made to try to help these young people who have specific talents in the arts and educate them at a time of life when they need this help.


Mr. Regier:: What progress is being made toward the integration of Indians in the ordinary public schools of Canada? I know this move has been under way for a number
5058	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of years. Would the minister also explain what is meant in the details on pages 148 and 149 by employees listed as teacher aides? There are 37 of them in the day schools and 52 in the residential schools and also 13 part-time teacher aides in the residential schools. Exactly what do these people do?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: These teacher aides are all Indians who are training, and then being sent on to professional teachers' training.


Erhart Regier: May I ask, are they in charge of a classroom?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Not without supervision, no.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the wage levels and the supply? I notice the wage levels are well below the wage levels of the ordinary public school teachers, at least in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and I imagine also Ontario.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is the hon. member speaking of teachers or teacher aides?


Erhart Regier: No, teachers.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The salaries paid to our teachers are on a par with the salaries paid in the respective provinces, you see. This is an over-all description of the salaries, and some of the provinces differ. There are certain provinces in Canada where the wage scales are much lower than in others.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister claiming that the wages paid to teachers in Indian schools vary from province to province?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, ours is an over-all standard, but it is based on the average of the salaries paid across the country by the various provinces.


Erhart Regier: May I then ask, how is the department making out with the recruitment of teachers in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia? Does this particular matter have any relationship to the engagement of so-called teacher aides?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, there is no relationship there, Mr. Chairman. The work of teacher aides, while it is useful to us, is largely one of training. When you get into the provinces the hon. member has enumerated the salaries are probably higher than in some of the other provinces and it is true we do have difficulty in recruiting teachers. However, I do not believe the difficulty has been so severe that we have been unable to staff our classrooms.
In some of the provinces of Canada our teachers are probably making more than the


average teacher in the province. As the hon. member knows, we are governed by federal rules and we cannot have different wage scales in different provinces.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister would answer the other query as to what headway is being made in the question of integration of Indians into the regular public school system?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Again, I believe I gave that information in my initial statement. Last year, 1958-59, the number of Indian children attending non-Indian schools was 8,186, and this year, 1959-60, it was 9,479 or 1,300 more.


Erhart Regier: Is the minister in a position to say whether or not there has been an upward revision in teachers' wages since the publication of the blue book? Are these the existing wages?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There has been no revision since this book was published.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: I wonder if the minister could indicate whether any of the figures under vote 63 include payments to the department of northern affairs for the education of Indians in the Northwest Territories?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Chairman.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not want to hold up the minister's estimates, but after the committee rises I would very much appreciate if she had a personal look at two projects that have had my attention for some time, as well as the attention of the department. We are not making much progress. It is over three years since the department itself said the boilers in the residential school at Fort Frances were in such condition that repairs were not economically justified. No start has as yet been made on that building. During the last two winters we have had heavy unemployment and the work would have been useful to the community. I would hope that in the near future the minister could give some indication that the project is going ahead.
The other problem is the accommodation at Sioux Lookout which, I am told, is not adequate for the children of that area. I understand they are turning down now as many pupils as they have registered. They do not particularly want the continuation of that school. They very fairly state that perhaps the proper place for another school would be midway between that school and Kenora. I am told in my visits there that they are turning down almost as many children at Sioux Lookout as they have registered.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: With regard to the first problem, that is a public works project. We

will be glad to do our best to give them a little prod. In so far as the circumstances at Sioux Lookout are concerned, I must say that I am not aware of this but I will have a look at it.


Erhart Regier: I just want to make one final observation. I notice that the wages of teachers in residential schools are listed at $2,700 as a minimum. At the same time, I notice that a handyman in the residential school receives $3,100; kitchen helpers receive a reasonable wage; a labourer is listed at $2,800; a laundress at $2,800 and a seamstress also at $2,800. Perhaps the minister could look at that. I would hope the minister would agree that these teachers' wages are in need of a revision upward and at a very early date because I can well imagine the quality of teachers the minister is able to obtain in the four provinces I mentioned. I regret that Indian education is going to bear the brunt of it. I feel that a teacher's beginning wage certainly ought to exceed the wages of a seamstress, laundress, labourer or handyman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
64. Grant to provide additional services to the Indians of British Columbia, $100,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister mind just giving the details of this vote 64?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This, Mr. Chairman, is not a new item. As the hon. member knows, it provides additional services for the Indians of British Columbia in lieu of annuities. During the 1926-27 session of parliament the special committee of the Senate and House of Commons recommended the expenditure of $100,000 annually on technical education, the promotion of agriculture, stock-raising, fruit culture, the development of irrigation projects, hospitals and so on.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Maintained throughout the years?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
46.	Departmental administration, $824,266.
John Whitney Pickersgill: There is just one word I want to say on vote 46. It will just take a second. It is something I meant to say on immigration earlier, but which I think I could say quite well here. There was what I thought was a regrettable statement attributed to the leader of the government of the other place, but not in the other place because I would have been out of order if I had mentioned that. This statement was made, according to Der Nordwesten in Winnipeg on the occasion of the 41st annual conference of the law society. Senator W. M. Aseltine,
Business of the House
73, formerly a lawyer in Rosetown, Saskatchewan-I am just reading what it says here- made a statement to the effect that we must not abolish capital punishment in this country so long as we had so many immigrants here. I just wanted to say that I deplore the view that seems to be expressed by one member of the government, or at least the representative of the government in the other place. I hope that view is not shared by other members of the government.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: A few days after that the hon. senator made a statement in which he said he had not made this particular remark. There was always the chance of error and I am sure the hon. senator never made any such remark.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad to hear that because it did not seem like him at all, and if he made a correction, which I must say did not come to my notice, I am very sorry I even alluded to it and I apologize.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, if the committee will grant me an indulgence I did promise to answer one question. I promised an hon. member I would give him the amount of bad debts from assisted passage loans. Over the years they have amounted to $56,885.40 which, out of a total figure of loans of $19 million odd, represents some one quarter of one per cent, which I think is a very good record.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Ten o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being ten o'clock shall I rise-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I think-


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for Mackenzie has called it ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the house leader could indicate the business for tomorrow and as much of next week as it is possible? Perhaps before he does it I might explain the undertaking that was given in good faith about the estimates with which we have just been dealing. There are one or two questions which one hon. member wishes to ask, but we have no intention of breaking our undertaking not to resume a general debate.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Thank you.

Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: For tomorrow we will carry on with the estimates of this department, followed by mines and technical surveys and fisheries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could interrupt the minister for a moment to ask him if, when he says the estimates of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, he means all those agencies for which the minister has responsibility, or just the estimates of her department?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, thank you for the correction; it will be the agencies for which the minister has responsibility, which include the art gallery, film board, archives and the national library. Those being finished we will go on with mines and technical surveys and we have fisheries available if required.
With regard to the tentative program for next week the legislative items are in this order. First, Bill No. C-70, which will be back on the order paper, dealing with the international development association, reported back from committee. The second is No. 5 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Public Service Superannuation Act. The third item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Civil Service Act, item No. 7 on today's order paper. The fourth item will be second reading of Bill No. C-68, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. The fifth item-and the arrangement is that this one will be started on Tuesday-is the motion in
the name of the Minister of National Revenue to set up a select committee on broadcasting. The sixth item will be the resolution in the name of the Minister of Justice, item No. 8 on today's order paper, dealing with an amendment to the Judges Act. The seventh item is item No. 2 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-64, an act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The eighth item is No. 1 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. S-32 concerning a bridge over the St. Lawrence river. If we finish those we will have on the order paper by Monday a motion to set up a special committee to deal with the Civil Service Act and the superannuation act.
Those items will be called for Monday and Tuesday, and perhaps Wednesday depending on what progress the house makes. Then tentatively we will be calling any of the estimates not completed tomorrow, and we have health and welfare, northern affairs and justice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do I understand from the minister that regardless of the order he gave the first item of business on Tuesday will be the broadcasting committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And it would not be called on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, it will not be called on Monday.


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

[Stage Direction]
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Citizenship-
47.	Citizenship registration branch. $716,892.
48.	Citizenship branch, $785,159.
49.	Grants to organizations as detailed in the estimates, $40,000.
Immigration branch-
50.	Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,219,129.
51.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $13,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $6,871,904.
52.	Field and inspectional service, abroad. $2,150,979.
53.	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, $2,100,000.
Indian affairs branch-
54.	Administration, $703,460.
Indian agencies-
55.	Operation and maintenance, $3,876,946.
56.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,214,500.
Reserves and trusts-
57.	Operation and maintenance, $378,266.
Supply-Items Passed Welfare of Indians-
58.	Operation and maintenance, $8,193,245.
59.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $2,015,000.
Economic development of Indians-
60.	Operation and maintenance, including an amount of $5,700 for grants to promote Indian agriculture, handicrafts and economic enterprises generally, $938,688.
61.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $240,403.
Education-
62.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $19,578,651.
63.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment including payments under agreements to provide joint educational facilities to Indian pupils, $7,362,500.
64.	Grant to provide additional services to the Indians of British Columbia, $100,000.
Immigration branch-
505.	Administration of the Immigration Act- further amount required, $25,000.
Indian affairs branch-
Indian agencies-
506. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $61,500.
Education-
507. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including payments under agreements to provide joint educational facilities to Indian pupils-further amount required, $392,500.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 17, 1960