1961-02-09

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on standing orders-Miss Aitken.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. C. Fairfield (Portage-Neepawa)
presented the first report of the special committee on broadcasting, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-66, to amend the Representation Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to change the name of the St. Mary constituency into that of Camillien Houde. It also seeks to avoid any confusion with the provincial constituency bearing the same name but with different dividing lines.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. (Text) :



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to tell the house whether the question of monetary policy will be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce when the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada is made available, rather than to a royal commission.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to answer the alternative, but will simply answer the first part of the question by saying that no decision has been made in this regard.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on an article appearing in the St. John's Examiner, a copy of which I believe was sent to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in which it is stated that United States atomic weapons are stored at a number of bases in Canada, including Goose Bay, Labrador.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: I think the Prime Minister, on at least two occasions, has stated categorically that this report is incorrect. I can only repeat that there is no truth in this statement.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Would the minister comment on a further statement in the report to the effect that United States bombers carrying atomic bombs fly over Canadian territory from time to time?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Assiniboia is simply asking for verification of a press report which he is not in any position to substantiate himself, and unless he takes responsibility for the statement that is not considered to be good practice.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker, I may say it is common practice for us to ask a minister to comment on a newspaper report. I will put it in that form if that is a more desirable form. It is something we have been doing every day in the week for many years.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it is a matter of form. If the hon. member asked whether the government had any information that such flights were being carried out, it would no doubt be regular.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may phrase it that way, then, I will ask the minister if he has any information to impart to the house on the statement that United States bombers, carrying atomic bombs, are flying over Canadian territory.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would refer the hon. member to two statements on this subject by the
1876	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister, one on June 3, 1958 and the other on March 17, 1959. These statements will be found in Hansard for these dates and they cover this question in considerable detail. The situation has not changed in this regard since that time.



REPORTED INTENTION TO DISBAND CF-100 SQUADRONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government to reduce the number of CF-100 squadrons in Canada before a decision has been taken in regard to their replacement?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I indicated in reply to a similar question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, my predecessor stated some months ago that during 1961 we would begin to phase out the CF-100 squadrons. During the course of this year some four of these squadrons will be phased out in an ordered program.


John Richard Garland: May I say with respect that the answer to the question by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday does not cover my question. Would the minister consider answering my question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that statement
answers the question.


John Richard Garland: If I may, I will repeat the question. Is it the intention of the government to reduce the number of CF-100 squadrons in Canada before a decision has been taken with regard to their replacement?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the answer I have given answers that question.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has his department made a new proposal to Washington for the sale of the Canadair CL-44 transport plane, and if so what is the nature of the proposal?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member is referring to a couple of press articles which appeared earlier, one in this morning's newspaper, I believe, and one in yesterday's. These are both speculative stories and I do not believe it would be proper for me to comment on them, nor would it serve any good purpose to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister write a letter, as referred to in the issue of the Montreal Gazette, to his opposite number in the United States, Mr. McNamara, in connection with this matter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have written only one letter to Mr. McNamara, and that was to congratulate him on being appointed secretary of defence.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Waller Pitman (Peterborough):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister received reports that welfare officers are threatening immigrants applying for welfare benefits with being reported to the immigration department, with the possibility of deportation? If so, can the minister assure the house that there is no truth whatsoever in these reports?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I saw this report in one of last evening's newpapers. I also had a telegram from one of the labour organizations in Hamilton. The hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Martini) and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) also were inquiring with respect to this rumour. I can assure all hon. members that there is absolutely no truth in it whatsoever.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier asked me whether I had received from the railway brotherhoods a reply to the request to them and to the railways to commence negotiations. I said that I would table the reply today. In doing so I would also table the correspondence that passed between the railway companies, the brotherhoods and myself in connection with this matter.



RUSSIA-REPORTED ABILITY TO UNDERCUT CANADIAN MINERAL EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or, in his absence, to his

parliamentary secretary. Has the minister seen the statement by the president of the Asbestos corporation before the Senate manpower committee that Russia is in a position to undercut Canadian exports of minerals to western Europe with low price offerings from communist sources? If so, has he any comment to make thereon?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be back tomorrow. The question will be taken as notice and will be drawn to his attention.



ELECTRONIC TUBES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: On Wednesday, February 1, the hon. member for Lincoln asked a question with respect to the importation of electronic receiving tubes coming into Canada from Japan through San Francisco.
I am advised by my officers that inquiries have revealed that substantial quantities of Japanese electronic receiving tubes have been imported into Canada after transshipment at San Francisco. With two exceptions, in mid-November and early December, involving relatively small quantities, these tubes were imported prior to the imposition of the voluntary embargo by the Japanese. The importer concerned has followed the practice of placing the tubes in a bonded warehouse in Vancouver, to be drawn from stock as required.
All such tubes are being valued for duty at the fair market value prevailing at the time and place of transshipment to Canada. This means that the value for duty will be higher than the Japanese selling price by at least the amount of the United States duty and the shipping charges accruing from Japan to San Francisco.



REQUEST FOR QUOTA ON STEEL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss Judy V. LaMarsh (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or, in his absence, to the acting minister. In the light of the fact that the Canadian stainless steel flatware industry of Niagara Falls has suffered a 75 per cent cut in employment because of heavy imports from Japan, can the minister say whether consultations with Japanese representatives for further voluntary export quotas are proceeding?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker,
I think the hon. member knows that negotiations have been under way with Japan for a period of time. When there is something to report to the house an announcement will be made.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: A supplementary question. In the light of the statement attributed to Ukichi Takezaki that the Japanese industry will not accept further voluntary quotas, can the hon. gentleman say whether the government is prepared to accept this take it or leave it attitude and abandon the Canadian flatware industry?


Richard Albert Bell: There is no such thing as abandonment of any industry on the part of this government. This government intends to stand behind all Canadian industry, and its record in that respect is well known.



U.S. FOOD DISPOSAL PROGRAM    THREAT TO CANADIAN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of an article in the Financial Post of February 11, containing the statement that President Kennedy's food for peace task force has recommended that the United States food disposal program be stepped up from $1,500 million annually to $3,500 million. In view of this grave threat to Canada's agricultural exports, will the Prime Minister discuss with President Kennedy the possibility of co-operation between our two countries in our respective food export programs?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is a question by anticipation. If I understood correctly, the article to which the hon. member referred is in an issue of February 11; I think that is what he said in his opening remarks.


Hazen Robert Argue: The February 11 issue of the Financial Post.


John George Diefenbaker: However, may I say that on a number of occasions I have heard the hon. gentleman preach ruin of the agriculture industry and speak of the danger that would follow a distribution of food products by the United States anywhere in the world. We have consistently dealt with this matter with the authorities in the United States. The result has been that, in connection with policies on food distribution, Canada's views have received the fullest consideration by the United States, and I am sure that the same attitude will be shown by the present administration. We will do our part at all times to assure that while those portions of
1878	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the world where want and famine exist shall not be denied the assistance from the free world, these policies should not unnecessarily or unfairly interfere with commercial trade or the rights of other nations.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is able to tell the house if he will be discussing the question of a food disposal program with the President?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the matters discussed will be reported to the house following the discussions that take place.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Paul Racine (Beauce):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the numerous complaints of unemployed persons who no longer receive unemployment insurance benefits as a result of the new interpretation of the service contract, is it the intention of the minister to issue instructions in order to remedy what has become an untenable situation?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice that he would ask this question. I immediately contacted the unemployment insurance commission, and they advise me that there is no new interpretation of the regulations with regard to the contract of service. The difference now is, so they tell me, that the regulations are being enforced.


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer just given by the Minister of Labour I would like to ask him whether he is aware that the enforcement of the instructions now contained in pamphlet 13, where the commission defines "service contract", is detrimental to the campaign for winter works, particular in the renovation and home construction field.


Michael Starr: I am not aware that it is having the effect which the hon. member says it is.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to a delegation that seems to have visited Ottawa yesterday, a high power one from that great city of Toronto. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell us what


was the substance of the delegation approach and what conclusions were reached.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with the description of any delegation from Toronto as high power in the sense that they endeavour to overpower in any way. A presentation was made by a delegation from metropolitan Toronto, headed by the metropolitan mayor and the mayor of Toronto, asking for consideration on the part of the government to the inclusion of their subway plan in the general scheme which is today the law of this country whereby the Department of Public Works makes available assistance in connection with pollution and the like.
It was pointed out that at present, as the law now stands, subways do not come within the provisions of existing legislation. After a full and complete discussion of the matter the delegation was advised that when a decision was arrived at with respect to the request, the metropolitan area of Toronto would be advised accordingly.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There is another bill this year before the United States congress proposing to divert 1500 cubic feet of water per second from lake Michigan into the Illinois waterway. I believe the bill was passed last year but was vetoed by the president. My question is, has the government made any representations to the new administration in Washington and, if not, is it their intention to do so?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there was no bill vetoed by the president last year. I think there was a bill in the house, but it did not get through the Senate.
As yet we have made no representations to the new administration. I think perhaps the time has not yet come to do that. But our position on this question remains the same, that we are very strongly opposed to any further diversion of water at Chicago.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. J. Browne (Acting Minister of
Justice): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, February 7 the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked this question:
[Stage Direction]
In view of the fines levied on eight electrical companies in the United States for bid rigging and price fixing, will the minister tell the house whether any investigation has been made or is contemplated by the director of research and investigation, combines branch, into similar practices by the Canadian counterparts of these electrical companies?
I have here the answer. In the post-war period, as the annual reports of the combines branch indicate, there have been inquiries into certain aspects of the electrical industry, two of which have resulted in published reports and prosecutions. The combines branch maintains a continuing interest in this field, as in other fields and, in accordance with the usual practice, any information coming to the attention of the director indicating a possible violation of the Combines Investigation Act is carefully considered to determine whether the situation is such as to warrant formal inquiry. The general practice, however, is that no information is given out as to whether an inquiry is being pursued in a particular industry unless 'and until a report is published.
(Translation):


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I
should like to put a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Dorion). Could the minister inform the house why the government has not acted upon the recommendations contained in the Ilsley report to the effect that Canada should sign the universal convention on copyrights passed in Geneva in 1952?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her courtesy in addressing me in my mother tongue. With her permission, I shall consider the matter and give her an answer later on.
(Text):



PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I wonder, sir, if I might ask the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position, or whether he can indicate when he might be in a position, to announce the constitution of the national productivity council.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the mobilization of those who will constitute this most important body is proceeding. When we are in a position to announce the full, complete personnel, it will be done.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate how a national productivity council that does not exist is going to affect unemployment


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member certainly does not appear to be seeking information in the question which he is asking.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Since the minister's statement on February 6, stripped of its ministerial embellishment, shows that only about 176 more housing starts were made in January, 1961 than in January, 1960, will the government give immediate consideration to lowering the N.H.A. interest rate in order to further stimulate house building, which would be in line with action recommended to congress by President Kennedy of the United States?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: We cannot take any suggestions or leads from President Kennedy in running this government. We are doing what appears best for Canada and he for the United States. And apparently what we have done has received commendation from the executive vice president of the National House Builders Association, who said just recently:
"Hon. David J. Walker, Minister of Public Works, should be given full credit. Revision of the act required a high degree of political statesmanship. Already it is having a healthy effect on residential construction."


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps it is a little late to attempt to establish the relation of the answer to the question.


John Richard Garland: Perhaps Your Honour might permit a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is similar to the ministers' answer, I would think not.


John Richard Garland: If I may say so with respect, this is a matter which does affect job opportunities for thousands of people in this country. Will the minister give us an assurance that the government is giving consideration to lowering this interest rate, which in my opinion is the main deterrent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member made his plea for lower interest rates in his first question. The supplementary adds nothing.

Inquiries of the Ministry BROADCASTING



REPORTED STATEMENT BY MEMBER OF BOARD OF GOVERNORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask a very simple question of the Minister of National Revenue in his role as broadcasting authority. It arises from a statement which appears to have been made by Carlyle Allison, who is a member of the board of broadcast governors:
It is interesting to note that none of our recommendations have been turned down by the government, which would indicate how much of an independent board we are.
I wonder if I could ask the minister whether the board of broadcast governors is still an independent board.


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not responsible for the language used. The editor, having left his editorial sanctum in Winnipeg, has perhaps become less happy in his choice of words.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he concluded his study of the Clark report dealing with survivorship and other aspects of the United States pension system, or is that study still continuing?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The study is continuing, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question. Is it the intention of the minister to recommend the establishment of a royal commission to give further consideration to this matter?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a question to ask the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps in his absence the hon. gentleman's parliamentary secretary could answer it. It is a question affecting the general health of the people of the Yukon. Is the minister aware that uninspected meats are being transported interprovincially from British Columbia into the Yukon Territory contrary to the Canada Meat Inspection Act? If so, will he take action to ensure compliance with the law in this regard?


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: This matter has been drawn to the attention of the department and investigations have been undertaken, but some problems have been experienced with respect to the enforcement of this section of the act in this far northern area. However, I can assure the hon. member that additional means of enforcement are now being studied.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter George Pitman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the Ontario government requested permission from the department to license small craft. If so, what consideration has been given to the request?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have no record of any special request from the Ontario provincial government with a view to giving authority to the province to undertake small boat licensing. In fact the federal government already has a licensing scheme in effect. However, there are a number of important questions relating to the safety regulation of small boats which can involve co-operation with the provinces, and these have been receiving the attention of my department. I hope to be able to make a further statement on this in due course, probably when my departmental estimates are under consideration.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: supplementary question. In view of the great importance of this problem and the recent conferences which have been held, has the government given consideration to amending the appropriate act to meet the growing need for better regulation of small craft on inland waters?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter is under consideration at the present time. We had a very successful study period with representatives of the industry, and the whole matter is being considered.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
AND TABLING On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him whether progress is being made with respect to the printing and tabling of the report of Dr. Sinclair.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as I already said some time ago,

as far as complying with the order of the house is concerned, the printing is being expedited as much as possible, but it is a rather complicated job and we have experienced some unanticipated delays. I erred in my first estimate, and I should not like to make another error. I assure the hon. member that the report will be tabled and distributed as rapidly as possible.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. According to the two o'clock news another important mail robbery involving a mail truck has taken place between Three Rivers and La Tuque. Is the minister aware of this robbery? I think it was a hold-up. There were five bandits involved and they stole all the mail in the truck. If the minister is aware of this robbery is he in position to give more details about it?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not seem to have been quite as close to this particular robbery as the hon. member, and there is nothing I can add at this time to the information which he has obtained over the radio.


Azellus Denis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the practice of the Post Office Department that every time there is an important new event or a piece of bad luck the minister is made aware of it?
(Translation):



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell me if he is aware of a report published in La Presse of January 28, 1961 to the effect that all the posters, except two, at the Ottawa airport are written only in English and, if so, does he intend to take concrete steps about this matter?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the article has been brought to my attention and I am considering the situation.
(Text):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
Pension Act Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the term of office of the president of the Canadian National Railways expired as of September, 1960, is the minister now in a position to tell the house whether he has been reappointed?


Léon Balcer: The hon. member asked me a similar question earlier in the session, and I, have nothing to add to what I said at that time.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 8, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Churchill-Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases to disabled veterans and their dependants; to permit payment of supplementary pensions in certain cases; to permit appeals from decisions of the former board of pension commissioners; and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. Besi:: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly this afternoon on the amendments to the Pension Act now before the house. Remarks have been made by many members about the excellent prospects envisaged by the resolution and the importance it will have to the some million and a quarter veterans throughout our country.
First of all, however, before discussing the measure I should like to congratulate the new Minister of Veterans Affairs. I think we all must pay tribute also to Colonel Brooks, the last minister, a member of the house for some 25 years, during whose period of approximately three and one half years as minister of the department many important changes and improvements were made.
The resolution before us at the moment is, I think, an excellent one, and comments to that effect have been made by officials of the Canadian Legion and other interested bodies across Canada. I should like to make some comments on the purposes of the legislation. Following upon its announcement in the speech from the throne, it is proposed by this legislation to increase the rate of pensions payable to disabled war veterans and to the dependants of those who lost their lives in the service of Canada. Incidentally, the number who lost their lives in the first and second world wars total some 104,000 Canadians. This, then, is one objective of the legislation.
Second, its purpose is to provide for increases in the maximum grants for burial expenses of pensioners. The amendment provides that the rates of such grants will keep

Pension Act
pace with similar payments for veterans who die in our treatment hospitals. The purposes and objectives of the legislation were outlined in some detail by the new Minister of Veterans Affairs on December 12, 1960 as found on pages 734 and 735 of Hansard.
A third aspect of the resolution deals with Canadian citizens who served in an allied force during either of the wars. It is proposed to bring in an amendment under which they may claim entitlement from the Canadian pension commission when their claims have been rejected by the government of the allied force in which they served.
Fourth, there are certain amendments which will affect payments to children. As the minister pointed out, the rates are to be increased. In addition there are certain technical changes involving the month in which a child becomes ineligible for such a pension during the sixteenth and seventeenth years. A further amendment will also provide for equalization of payments to all the children of a family rather than the present procedure whereby a greater amount is paid on behalf of the first child than on behalf of the second.
I am sure that these and other amendments will do much to bring a greater measure of fairness to this most important legislation. I am sure that some of the miscellaneous amendments and procedural changes in the Pension Act and its administration will also have a beneficial effect on our veterans and their dependants.
In this legislation we are concerned, of course, with our veterans. That goes without saying. Many members of our forces gave their lives and many others gave their health. In all cases they have given a considerable period of their lives to the protection of all of us here in Canada and, indeed, of the whole free world. The numbers of our Canadian veterans are very considerable. I mentioned earlier a million and a quarter people. The figures appear to indicate that from world war I we have some 240,000 survivors, and of this number approximately 49,000 are pensioners with disabilities exceeding 25 per cent. In the case of world war II the figure is 826,000 and the number of pensioners is some 100,000, or slightly over 12 per cent. To these pensioners we indeed owe a great deal. We cannot measure what we owe them, of course, in terms of dollars and cents, but we must try; and the process must be a continual one in order to bring about an increased measure of fairness in compensation to them for what they gave for us.
I thing we might look briefly at the past record. During the last three or four years the record has indeed been considerable. During Colonel Brooks' occupation of the

portfolio of veterans affairs some $47 J million was added by consent of the house to the amount being received by our veterans in disability pensions and war veterans allowances, and through increases to widows and dependant parents, educational assistance to children and increases for hospitals. This is indeed a considerable figure. Other things have been done as well. The resistance requirement for allied veterans was lowered from 20 to 10 years, and additional funds were made available for the Veterans' Land Act as well as in home construction loans for veterans. In summary, I think the record of the last three and a half or four years has been considerable and important.
One thing that strikes me about the many veterans in my riding, and I am sure this is true across the country, is that they continue to render service. Their service is not just in wartime. They appear to take part in virtually every community activity that goes on in my area, and I am sure that is true of other places across Canada.
I think it is important to know what our veterans are doing and not beside the point we are considering at the moment, because if we know what they are doing we will know better what they need and what their wishes and requests are, and I think that has an important relationship to this legislation. We have many important veterans organizations such as the Canadian Legion, the war amputation associations and various service associations across Canada. These and other organizations presented to the veterans affairs committee established in 1958, for which the government must be congratulated, briefs and important requests as to what should be done with respect to our veterans affairs legislation.
In my own country, for instance, there are some 2,000 to 3,000 members of the Canadian Legion. We have important and major branches of the Legion in towns such as Acton, Georgetown, Milton, Oakville and Burlington. In these communities our veterans, and our Legion members in particular, have made most important contributions. In my own home town of Georgetown they have recently contributed some $10,000 to the new hospital. In every community in my riding, and I am sure across Canada, they are most active in children's sports activities such as baseball and hockey. In my communities with a population of from 4,000 to 10,000 or more, one finds that 300 or 400 or more children each week are organized into sports activities by members of the Canadian Legion. In the town of Milton in my riding they take part in a portable hospital equipment campaign which makes equipment available to people in their homes.

A new Legion building in the town of Burlington in my riding has added much to that area. As an example of the community spirit and the continuing service which has been rendered by these veterans, I recall that two years ago when a school burned down in the town of Acton, a portion of the Canadian Legion building in that town was immediately turned over to the school children for their classes. Winter works projects are playing a part in the Legion activities, and funds have been contributed toward various such projects in my area. The veterans, acting through the Legion and working in community activities, are doing many things on a provincial and national basis. One example of this which comes to my mind is the eye bank. I believe also that about $75,000 or $80,000 has been paid out each year in scholarships to children going to universities in Ontario. These are some of the contributions they have made, Mr. Chairman.
What do our veterans ask of us in so far as this legislation is concerned, and perhaps with respect to future amendments or administrative changes? In talking to the veterans in my riding I note that the first thing they request is a substantial pension increase to disabled veterans. I should like to look briefly at a recent issue of the Legion magazine, the Legionary, for January, 1961, pages 4 and 7. We find that some of the financial problems facing our disabled veterans are outlined there. For instance, in the period from 1920 to 1957, and indeed until today, the annual pension of a 100 per cent disabled single pensioner has been increased from $900 a year to $1,800. The amount was doubled in that period of about 40 years.
If one compares that, as this issue of the Legionary does, with what they call a composite average wage from the year 1919 to 1958, one gets a different picture. This composite wage in 1919 was $900, about on a par with the pension granted at that time. The composite average wage in 1958 was $3,600, or four times the 1919 figure. While pensions have doubled during this time, we find that the composite average wage has been multiplied four times. I think this is a measure of the plight of some of our veterans. We are most pleased to see our government taking important action in this field.
It has been pointed out by several members during the last two days that section 70, the benefit of doubt section, as applied by our pension commission needs some attention. The Canadian Legion has indicated, and these figures must be available to all, that nearly 50 per cent of the cases heard on appeal during the year 1958-59 were successful. I feel that this rather extraordinary record points up the difficulty that there must be during the first hearing, and suggests that 90205-6-119
Pension Act
some change is needed. There should be a clearer interpretation of section 70 in order to give the veteran the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, I think the benefit of the doubt should not be interpreted in favour of the commission but must be given to the veteran himself.
It is not unnatural that in certain cases, perhaps judged on the medical evidence alone, some doubt would remain as to whether such injuries or complications resulted during wartime or before or after. In a field such as medicine this sort of doubt is only natural, and that such doubt should occur in a large number of cases is only natural. If we are putting the elimination of doubt on this basis of medical certainty, then it is only normal that a large number of cases will be turned down. However, if the veteran were given the benefit of the doubt I think we would reach a more equitable solution. This is one thing my Legion members are requesting.
The next request is for some change in the appeal board situation, perhaps in the way of balancing the composition of the board with a doctor, a lawyer and a layman. I believe this was the original intention. This point has been mentioned to me on numerous occasions. It may be that with such appeal boards the medical doubt takes precedence over the doubt that may exist in other parts of the case, particularly if there is more than one doctor. If the composition of such boards were changed somewhat it might be that a more realistic application of existing laws would be made.
These, Mr. Chairman, are the matters that have been brought to my attention by the veterans in my riding. They are delighted at the prospects for changes in this legislation, and we are indeed looking forward to the spelling out of the details regarding pensions and other matters in the immediate future.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, one can never give enough praise to the government which concerns itself again with the veterans in putting forward amendments to the Pension Act.
Many veterans live in the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm where we also have three branches of the Canadian Legion, at Joliette, Terrebonne Heights and Rawdon.
As other members have stated, veterans have made many a sacrifice in two world wars, and I wish to add my voice to that of the other members who made suggestions about the Canadian pension commission and the benefit of the doubt clause.
Many veterans are denied a pension after they have become ill or incapacitated following their service in the armed forces.

Pension Act
Moral evidence exists, but it is often hard to establish on medical evidence whether the illness or incapacity developed at the time the veteran was a member of the armed forces. Therefore, I would ask the Canadian pension commission to give the veteran the benefit of the doubt.
I should like also to make the following suggestion to the government: if my information is accurate, some crown corporations, such as Canadian Arsenals, do not give any preference to veterans for employment purposes. Therefore, I would ask the government to give them that preference, other things being equal, and when some employees have to be laid off veterans should be kept on.
Mr. Chairman, I only wanted to make those few remarks and to congratulate the new Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill).
(Text):


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add a word before this resolution carries. I do not think anything needs to be added to the arguments or to the expressions of approval which have been given. I should like to say that in my own experience I think the Department of Veterans Affairs has shown the most admirable consideration for the veterans. I have always found that the pension advocates in particular really look after their clients as if they were being paid on the basis of the results.
I should also like to reiterate what has been said about the present minister and his predecessor, and to mention one or two names that I do not recall having been mentioned, inasmuch as we owe so much over many years to the men who have worked on these committees and have never relaxed their efforts to see that veterans were looked after. I refer to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the present lieutenant governor of British Columbia. Both of them, along with the others mentioned, devoted unceasing efforts to this cause.
Before I take my seat I should just like to add one slight bit of what I suppose might be called atmosphere. It might be of interest if it comes to the eyes of any of those who were around in August, 1914. It is extremely hard for people whose memory does not go back to that date to realize the feeling at that moment. I think there were two feelings. First of all there was the overwhelming feeling that war which up to that time in our memory had been rather a trivial thing-a brush on the northwest frontier of India- that lasted only a few days suddenly had become a real and terrible thing. But happily there were still those who could take it

lightly. You meet them in every army. I refer to people who do not take things too seriously.
I should like to put on record one case about which I know, that of a young man who joitfed up in August, 1914. I think his chief fear was that the war might not last long enough for him to get into it. That did not prove to be the case. In those days the pay was dished out in a rather informal manner. The paymaster just came around with a wad of bills and handed them out here and there. When handing them over to this young soldier he was surprised to hear him say, "What is that for?" The paymaster said, "That is your pay". "My God," said the young recruit, "do we get paid to fight?"
I like to think there were people like that around. They are needed to keep up the spirit of every army. I do not know about the career of that young man during the war. However, I am quite sure that he was a good soldier. Perhaps one could compare him with those who are mentioned in lines from Tennyson's "Ulysses":
-My mariners, . . .
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine,-


Mr. McLennan:: Mr. Chairman, may I just wish the minister well in his new portfolio. I trust that he will show real initiative in the interests and the welfare of our veterans.
I congratulate the minister and the government on bringing in this resolution. Although we do not know the amount of the increases the bill will suggest, I hope they will be as generous as possible. Although this resolution covers only disability pensioners, I hope the minister will bring in a resolution dealing with the war veterans allowance, and that it will be on the same basis and effective at the same time as this legislation.
Many veterans on war veterans allowance find themselves in embarrassed circumstances today. With reference to the veterans of world war I who are now in the twilight of their lives and who spent one to four years in the mud and rat infested trenches in France and Belgium under heavy artillery fire, may I say this. Although they may not have been wounded, they suffered physical impairment which was indiscernible at that time. When hostilities ceased they were mentally upset, and by the time they got settled down or reestablished they ran into the years of the world-wide depression. Many had a difficult time in scraping out a bare existence. Others lost their savings and their insurance. Others ran into debt which took them years to pay off. Those were their most productive years and the years of their greatest earning power. Many of them never had a fair chance to provide for their declining years. I hope they will get the same treatment as those who were

on veterans pensions, the treatment they deserve. I repeat that I hope the minister brings in a duplicate resolution on war veterans allowance.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I want briefly to add my voice to those who have spoken with approbation of this resolution and who look with anticipation to the legislation which will follow. I think it would be gilding the lily to say much more than has been said already. However, I feel that if I remained silent I would be derelict in my duty to my constituency, in which there was a tremendous record of enlistments during the early part of the war, in which there has been such a large percentage of veterans who have rehabilitated themselves, both those who were pensionable and those without pensions, and in which there is a tremendous interest in the Canadian Legion, which has many branches in all parts of the Peace river country. Indeed, at many of the meetings I have attended parts of this resolution were the subject matter of keen and intelligent discussion. I certainly think the minister and the government are to be complimented on the introduction of the resolution.
Something has been said about the principle of the benefit of the doubt. It would seem to me that this is a term which has a definite and specific connotation in the minds of the courts and lawyers. In any case where there is a dispute between the crown and a subject or citizen, when all the evidence has been introduced and is before a tribunal, if it is difficult for the tribunal to formulate a firm decision then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the citizen as against the crown. That is something which has come down to us through generations and centuries of our legal experience in common law. I would think that the intention of those who drafted this particular section must have been guided to this particular phrase and its meaning. I certainly hope that from and after the introduction of this resolution that principle will be applied.
I want to deal briefly with something which I think should be mentioned at this time. It was raised by members from Newfoundland. Let me say first, as a condition precedent, that I had the privilege of serving both in this country and overseas with Newfoundlanders who were in the Canadian forces. They were the best of soldiers and the best of people. Certainly there is no reason, as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has said, why they should not be entitled to be put in precisely the same position as other Canadians.
However, there is a right way and a wrong way in which to achieve that end. When we come to consider the invitations which were 90205-6-1194
Pension Act
extended by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate and others, I suggest that they are in fact inviting this government to violate the sanctity of the British North America Act. I had the privilege of hearing the speech of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. I also read what he had to say, and I did so carefully. He referred to section 38 or, as he called it, term 38 which, as he said correctly, is part of a schedule attached to the British North America Act amendment of 1949. As such it becomes part of our constitution and cannot be in any way amended or changed save by the method laid out and provided by practice and by the British North America Act itself. That is particularly so where this is in fact a contract between two parties.
The hon. member made that suggestion because there was not contained within the four corners of term 38 the provision that he considered should be there, namely that veterans who prior to 1949 had not applied for and obtained a pension should not be compelled to go to the United Kingdom, obtain the pension which would be payable pursuant to the regulations of that country, and then come back to Canada to have it supplemented to the same level as that of Canadian veterans. I think he has a case there. There is a point there, but that is not the question.
I have read term 38 quite carefully, and twist, contort and torture it as you will, you cannot at any time read that interpretation into it. I think it would be quite wrong for this or any government to be asked to place an incorrect interpretation, no matter with what laudable motive, on a portion of the constitution with the intention that it should achieve a desirable result.
The other alternative suggested was this. If you cannot interpret it in that way, why not introduce in these amendments to the Pension Act a section or a provision which would give this particular privilege, or would restore to these veterans the same privileges that apply to other Canadians? I take it that would be nothing but a unilateral declaration by the Canadian government as to part of the constitution. As I say, the motive may be quite laudable, but I am quite certain that no province, and particularly the province of Newfoundland, would welcome an attempt by this government to so deal with this particular matter.
It seems to me that if we are to achieve this result it may be necessary to seek a proper constitutional amendment. I suppose for the next 20 years this government may be compelled to pick up the bits and pieces of the legislation of the previous government and remedy its defects. I think we may as well start now, by doing it in a proper

Pension Act
way when we have to do it. For that reason I support what was said by the hon. member for Saskatoon, that this is a serious matter which should engage the attention of the Department of Justice. When we attempt to achieve for the people of Newfoundland those things to which they are entitled, it should be done in the proper way.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would permit a question. I listened very carefully to what he had to say, and I wonder whether he would tell the committee what there is now, either in the terms of union or in any legislation pertaining to veterans' pensions, that prevents the Canadian pension commission from interpreting the act in the way we say it should be interpreted. The hon. member made the point that if you want to put a different interpretation on it you must follow the proper procedure required to change the constitution. But our stand is this; that there is no need to do that, because the wording is quite clear and it is just a matter of how we ourselves decide to interpret those words. That does not require any amendment; that only requires an exercise of will.
(Translation) :


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks on this resolution to amend the Pension Act in order to provide for pension increases to veterans.
This legislation will certainly be welcomed by all veterans. There are five branches of the Canadian Legion in my constituency, and I know they will all be delighted to learn that the government has finally decided to more or less agree to the Legion's request made last year in the committee on veterans affairs.
There is one point, however, which I would like to clarify. I was somewhat surprised to hear members of this house, especially on the government side, shower fulsome praise on the new minister (Mr. Churchill) and, I might add, convey him all kinds of good wishes. There is no doubt that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will put all his heart into his efforts to solve the problems which will occur in his department. I would add, however, in all fairness towards the Canadian Legion, as well as towards its branches in my constituency, that the best watching over veterans rights is done by the Canadian Legion itself.
I am glad to say that the five branches of the Legion are most active in my constituency and deal enthusiastically with all cases submitted to their attention, either from the point of view of pensions or from the point of view of veterans' assistance.

It would seem therefore, Mr. Chairman, that it would have been only fair and reasonable for the members on the government side to attribute greater merit to the Canadian Legion. Yet they preferred to commend this government which, after all, merely carries on the work begun by the previous administration, which brought forward the veterans' charter, for the welfare of these men and that of their families.
(Text):


Mr. Jones:: I thought, Mr. Chairman, we might just clear up some of the ambiguities that seem to have arisen over these representations in regard to the status of Newfoundland veterans. Yesterday, February 8, as reported at page 1867 of Hansard, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said;
It may well be asked what right have I to get up and say anything on this subject-
In other words the subject of Newfoundland veterans:
-because from 1953 to 1957 I was a member of the government and was the representative in the government of the province of Newfoundland. While I admit all that, as my friend the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo pointed out, this problem was not brought to our attention at that time by these people.
That was the contention of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate yesterday, and he was referring to remarks made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo on February 7 as reported at page 1806 of Hansard, as follows:
I know that hon. members will say, why has all this time passed and nothing been done about it? This is a fair question. Nothing has been done about it because we did not know about it until 1955 or 1956. We did not get any complaints from the veterans. I suppose one of the reasons we did not get complaints was that the average veteran did not know about term 38.
And so on. I suppose with the passage of time memories grow short, but I would point out to this committee that on November 23, 1953, this very matter was brought to the attention of the Liberal minister of veterans affairs, Hon. Hugues Lapointe, by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who has now forgotten that he made this earlier representation. On that date he wrote a letter to the former minister of veterans affairs asking if something could be done. The minister at that time replied:
-I suggest it would hardly be proper to place the Newfoundland veteran in a preferred position to Canadian veterans who served with the same forces, many of whom were born in Canada.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the hon. member would state from what he is reading.


Henry Frank Jones: It is a letter dated December 7, 1953 from the former minister of veterans

affairs, Hon. Hugues Lapointe, to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who was a member of the house at that time.
I refer also, to the question of the Newfoundland overseas forestry units. On June 16, 1952 representations were made to the former government in this regard. In order that there may be no doubt about this situation I should like to repeat what I said to the committee in this regard yesterday when I was speaking on this subject. I stated then, as will be found on page 1864 of Hansard:
May I say to the Newfoundland members that they may be assured that I intend to ask at the earliest possible opportunity for a study to be made of term 38 both by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Justice in order that the fullest consideration may be given to the representations which have been made both by the Canadian Legion and by hon. members of this house.
As has been pointed out in the course of this debate, it is necessary for a study to be made. Obviously, in the light of the reply which the minister of veterans affairs gave in 1953 to this question, such a study is necessary if it is to be determined with precision what exactly is the entitlement of Newfoundland veterans under term 38, or if it is to be expanded to include representations which were made to the government of that day and which have since been repeated in that regard.


Mr. Slewart:: In rising to take part in this debate I have no intention of delaying unduly the passage of this resolution, but in view of the contribution made in both the first and second world wars by men and women from my constituency I feel I have a definite obligation to speak at this time.
I should like first of all to associate myself with what was said by the present Minister of Veterans Affairs when he spoke in this house on December 12, congratulating his predecessor, now a member of the other place, on the work he had done in connection with veterans legislation. Colonel Brooks, now Senator Brooks, was a distinguished member of the armed services in two world wars and a distinguished member of the opposition before he became minister of veterans affairs. I can assure this committee that at all times Colonel Brooks held the interest of the veterans as his first consideration.
It has been my privilege to serve as a member of the standing committee on veterans affairs for the past three sessions and again this session. We Canadians, and this parliament of Canada, owe a great deal to those men and women who, without considering the sacrifice, gave of their best in the cause of freedom. We do not discharge our obligations to them by erecting cenotaphs, monuments or placing marble plaques
Pension Act
in our public buildings. These might bear mute though eloquent testimony to the memory of those they commemorate, but they do not compensate for the sacrifices which those people made incidental to the conflict in which they were engaged. I realize that we cannot measure suffering, hardship and sacrifice in terms of money. However, we can, as far as we are able, provide that those who suffered shall not be in a worse position than those who did not make sacrifices.
Many of our veterans-and a great deal of credit is due to them-came back from the conflict and were able to rehabilitate themselves satisfactorily. Others were not, and it is to them that we must be always ready and willing to lend a sympathetic ear and a helping hand. Since 1957 this government has been most arduous in its legislation and activities concerning pension benefits. I do not intend to review in any detail what has been done. Previous speakers have indicated some of the work which has been carried out by this government since 1957. We had a forecast by the Prime Minister some time ago that there would be an increase in pension benefits, and the resolution before us provides for such increases, provides for better appeal provisions and provides also for other fringe benefits.
This is not a problem which is lessening. The problem of veterans and their treatment is one which is growing and will continue to grow as the veterans become older. The former minister of veterans affairs, speaking to the Canadian Legion at its annual convention, said, as reported at page 12 of the pamphlet containing his speech:
In 1920 there were about 570.000 veterans of what was then known as the great war. By 1945 this number was down to around 350,000 but world war II had added a million new ones.
Later in the course of the same speech the former minister said:
In 1950 it was estimated that there were around 200,000 world war I veterans under age 60, and about 110,000 over that age. There were then about 35.000 war veterans allowances in payment, for which the annual liability was just over $24 millions.
Dealing with the present position he said:
Let us look ahead now over the next 15 years, by which time we estimate that about 80.000 great war veterans will be living in Canada, and that around 200,000 world war II veterans will be over age 60.
Then to quote further:
To peer further into the future is difficult, but we can predict fairly accurately, from mortality tables, the veteran population of Canada for any particular year. For example, we estimate that, in 1980, there will be 342,000 world war II veterans aged 60 and over; and that the largest number of veterans in that age group-515,000-will occur in 1986.

Pension Act
Hon. members will see from these figures that this is a growing problem and one which must be met from day to day. I would suggest, as others have suggested to the minister, that a similar resolution dealing with war allowance provisions be introduced in order that an increase in pensions may not mean, in effect, a decrease in war allowance payments. I would also suggest that the war allowance ceiling be raised so that those veterans who are desirous of earning more might be in a position to do so.
A great deal has been said about the benefit of the doubt clause. As hon. members have pointed out, this is quite a familiar phrase to those of us who are lawyers, but no judge has been able to define precisely or satisfactorily "what is a reasonable doubt." We interpret it as meaning that if after all the evidence has been heard there is any doubt on the whole case, or on any phase of it, that doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused person. I think the same interpretation should apply to applications for a pension before the pension commission. If there is any doubt on any phase of the medical evidence, and that is the prime factor, it should be given in favour of the applicant.
I should also like to suggest that the procedure on appeal be made simpler; that provision be made for the introduction of new evidence, if necessary, before the appeal board. I do hope that when the bill is considered in committee these and other matters will be dealt with. I want to assure the veterans of my constituency and veterans generally that any reasonable request by them will be given every consideration.


Mr. Phillips:: Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that I should say a few words on this occasion. My province had the highest percentage of volunteers of any area of Canada and my riding, of course, was very well represented in that regard. We have a very large number of legionnaires throughout the riding, and the Summerside Legion branch has one of the finest Legion homes and is one of the best branches in Canada.
I should also like to extend my congratulations to the new Minister of Veterans Affairs and his parliamentary secretary. The former minister, Colonel Alfred Brooks, was well known in my province, and I am sure that many veterans, as well as the members of this house, will wish him success in his new post.
A great deal has been said about the increased benefits that have been granted to veterans in the last few years, and I do not intend to review this other than to comment that they have been a source of great satisfaction to myself. This new legislation will add further benefits to those already granted.

However, there are several remarks that I should like to make, and in particular I should like to refer to the veteran who receives a disability pension and the remainder of whose income is made up of a war veterans allowance. It is imperative that the War Veterans' Allowance Act be reviewed at an early date to permit deserving veterans to obtain the benefit of the legislation now before the house. I am sure that the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government will listen to members from all sides of the house who have made this recommendation.
The remainder of the resolution deals with the benefit of the doubt and administration. I think possibly, sir, I can illustrate my feelings in this regard by referring to a number of cases about which I have been in contact with the Canadian pension commission. Here perhaps I can point out to my constituents that the pension commission is an independent organization and removed from the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The commission makes its own decisions and not the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
One case that I find most particularly annoying concerns a young chap who volunteered early in the war and proceeded overseas as a dispatch rider. He was injured in a motorcycle accident one evening; he was taken to an English civilian hospital, spent some time in hospital, returned to his unit and was on light duty. After his discharge he began to suffer pains in the back of his head where he had been injured in the accident. He got in touch with the Canadian pension commission for a pension. They took the attitude that the pains in the back of his head were imaginary, and he has been going back and forth for renewal hearings for the last 12 years. With the assistance of Colonel Brooks I was able to get him admitted to Camp Hill Hospital for an examination by specialists at that institution. He was examined by a neurologist, who reported that there was definitely trauma and that it was the source of the pain. However, six weeks later he received a phone call from another member of the medical staff who pointed out that in an interview with him the veteran had stated that he was in hospital a month and that was incorrect, and for no apparent reason the neurologist reversed his decision and the veteran is still attempting to get his pension.
Last year I wrote to the Canadian pension commission about this case. I referred them to the benefit of the doubt section and also to the earlier report of the neurologist, together with the fact that it has been impossible to obtain records from the English civilian hospital. After the renewal hearing they made the same decision. On checking his records, sir, at the renewal hearing I find that one

member of the commission has sat on each of his several renewal hearings. I think that points up a number of things that have been mentioned by members in this debate, namely the apparent disregard for the benefit of the doubt, the need of a new system of appeal, and the numerous cases in which medical documentation is not complete.
Another case that I would like to refer to concerns another young chap who served in Italy in 1944. He began to complain of chest pains and shortness of breath. He was examined by a medical officer. In all fairness to the medical officer it must be pointed out that the examination was probably conducted under anything but satisfactory conditions. The doctor attributed the chest pains and shortness of breath to a nervous condition. The young man returned to Canada after the war and shortly after discharge he suffered a heart attack. He was forced to sell his business and his wife was compelled to go to work to earn a living for him. In this case the Canadian pension commission ruled that the cardiac condition was pre-enlistment and was not aggravated during service.
I am sure that a great many veterans who made the tour through Italy would disagree with that decision. In addition, the pension commission has completely ignored his complaints of 1944, which I think point to aggravation of a heart condition whether or not it was pre-enlistment.
Recently I had the opportunity of talking with a former medical officer of the Royal Canadian Navy. He was relating some of his experiences, and referred to the fact that he often wonders about the present documentation. He told me the story of a convoy arriving in Newfoundland after a very difficult crossing of the Atlantic, and in a short while he was expected to examine 140 men. He often wonders now about the documentation. He states that it was impossible for him to make an adequate examination and at the same time enter his findings on the individual's documents.
Therefore I submit that the pension commission must bear these matters in mind and not depend entirely upon the medical documentation. I am hopeful that when the legislation is presented to the house it will provide the means to correct these injustices, and I look forward to seeing the legislation.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take much time. I was a soldier in the first world war. I did not win the war, although I was there. I am pleased with the appointment of the new Minister of Veterans Affairs, because he is a man who fought in two wars and he knows what it is all about.
I am not going to take much time because I should like to see the bill passed. All I want
Pension Act
is to see the allowance large enough so that the recipient will get a decent living. When we went overseas it was said that "nothing is too good for you" and afterwards the veterans said, "Wasn't it true? Nothing was too good."
I believe that the application of section 70 is wrong. There is always a doubt, and who gets the benefit of the doubt? The soldier is the fellow who comes off second best. Living costs so much today that the pension has got to be better than it is. When war veterans allowances are considered we should see to it that these men get enough money so they will not have to worry in their old age. They had to worry in the trenches. Politics did not count in those days. The fellow who laid alongside you in the trenches was not interested in whether you were a Grit or a C.C.P.'er or what you were. All he thought was that you were his buddy and you were there to help him and he was there to help you. Therefore I simply hope that the pension will be large enough so that these men can get a decent living.


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak briefly on the resolution I want to echo the congratulations extended by previous speakers to the new minister, his predecessor, the minister's parliamentary secretary and the other illustrious ministers who have been charged with the administration of this department in past years. I think it has generally been the case that capable men with the experience necessary to take charge of this department have always been found.
I wish to make a couple of observations. I am not a veteran. I was precluded from serving because of a serious illness, and I have always felt as I move amongst veterans today and meet them on the occasion of various celebrations that they have something of which I am very jealous. They have earned it and I did not, and I am pleased to have the opportunity from time to time to mingle with them, to listen to their experiences and their problems and to be as helpful as I can in bringing about justice for some of them where injustice seems to prevail.
From that point of view I think I can make an observation which I am sure will be fully supported. I believe that the grateful people of Canada desire that, through legislation passed by parliament, their gratitude and their regard for the veterans be shown in an adequate and substantial manner. I believe that has generally been the intent of parliament in the legislation that has been passed and revised from time to time in order to keep it up to date so as to meet the problems of the veterans.

Pension Act
We all must realize that as time goes on and veterans become older, their problems are greater. Some of them who have had companions to help them through life have lost them, and their present position in the twilight years becomes almost untenable without sincerity, sympathy and help being extended to them.
I raise my voice at this time because I believe parliament always intended that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the veteran. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that members are not wasting the time of the committee by speaking in numbers on this occasion. We are making the desire and intention of parliament known to those charged with the administration of the act. I cannot believe that these people have heard the voice of parliament in this regard and fully understand our desire. When some 50 per cent to 52 per cent of appeals from their decisions are allowed, it indicates to me a great lack of judgment in the initial consideration of these cases.
This is a serious matter to the veteran concerned. I have run across some of these cases which have been delayed for weeks and weeks and even months and months because of appeals and the fact that new evidence has been demanded. This is all right if the veteran is in a fair state of competence, but in many of these cases he has reached the point in the road which brought about the application in the first place, and the longer attention to and decision on the application is delayed the more serious the problem of the veteran becomes. In making these observations I do so in the hope that the addition of my voice to those of hon. members who have already spoken will bring about a more positive interpretation of the will of parliament by the administrators of the act.
I am very proud of the veterans organizations that exist in my community; I think they are among the finest in the country. The number of members of the house who are veterans indicates to me that, having served in war, they are not neglecting their responsibilities in times of peace and are discharging those responsibilities most efficiently.
The Canadian Legion, in particular the Saskatchewan command and our own Regina branch, has done an admirable job in so far as I am aware through my own work. They have gone to all lengths to properly attend to the demands made upon them by the veterans and their dependents. I do not know of a case in which they have let the veteran down. The results of their representations have not always been those for which we hoped, but at least I can say to all veterans and their dependents in Regina and in the

province that they have been given the most adequate service through their Legion branches.
I should like to make one other observation, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the allowances. I do not believe it would be fair, reasonable or satisfactory if this part of the legislation were to be improved at this session and the war veterans allowances forgotten. I seriously urge upon the minister the bringing up to date of the war veterans allowances at this session.


Mr. Fane:: I feel that the debate on this resolution could not possibly be complete without a few words from me on behalf of the veterans in the Vegreville constituency. There are a great many branches of the Legion there, and all are well attended. I can assure you that there is strong support amongst the veterans of this area for the present Department of Veterans Affairs.
Before I go any further I should like to congratulate our new minister upon his appointment to this department, the department about which there is the least controversy. It really is wonderful to find that when veterans affairs are being discussed everybody, whatever their political affiliations, wholeheartedly supports legislation for the benefit of the veterans. It is too bad that other departments could not receive the same treatment. At the same time I should like to convey my personal congratulations to the former minister, Colonel Brooks, on his elevation to his new post. He did a wonderful job when he was minister. He was always a great advocate for the rights of the ex-servicemen, and I am sure that everyone here wishes him well in his new post.
There is actually very little more to be said about this resolution, Mr. Chairman. Almost everything that could be said has been said and my remarks, therefore, will be very brief. When the minister brought this resolution before us on December 12 I was extremely pleased with its wording. I refer especially to the part which reads:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to provide for increases to disabled veterans and their dependents; to permit payment of supplementary pensions in certain cases; to permit appeals from decisions of the former board of pension commissioners; and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Those things are all good, and they are the things the veterans have been wanting. At the same time it must not be forgotten that in 1957 the war pensioners of Canada received an increase in pensions which amounted to some $47.5 million. These increases were granted to approximately 150,000 pensioners of the two world wars and

Korea. It is gratifying to know that pension increases are being granted to the veterans, and I trust that these increases will be adequate to look after their requirements. The widows' allowances, allowances to dependent parents, allowances for educational purposes and so on, are also to be increased. I believe this provision will be of great help to these people who carried on their shoulders the weight of the actual fighting in the war. There will be increases also in the amounts paid for hospitalization.
I should like to conclude by saying that a good many veterans will be very happy when the War Veterans Allowance Act is reviewed and those people who have served their country well will become eligible for larger payments. I know that at this time we are not allowed to discuss the War Veterans Allowance Act, but when the time comes I will be here to say a few more words about it.


Mr. Matthews:: Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to take part in any activity that is in support of the future well-being of Canadian veterans. In rising to support this resolution introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I would say that this is no exception. As a member of the standing committee on veterans affairs I was very disappointed, along with other members, that changes in the Pension Act which would have benefited all veterans could not be dealt with during the last session.
Since coming to the House of Commons I have had the pleasure of being a member of the standing committee on veterans affairs, and I am looking forward to the meetings to be held during this session. We will all be pleased to work again with the deputy minister, Mr. Lalonde, and the other members of this very important department. We will, of course, miss having Hon. A. J. Brooks with us. I am sure all members of the committee will agree with me when I say that his work in support of the veterans has been valuable for many years. All members of the committee are aware also of the fine work of the present Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on behalf of the veterans of Canada. I am sure that his interest and service to all veterans will continue, even though he will not be a member of this committee.
I am very happy to congratulate the new Minister of Veterans Affairs on his appointment. Hon. Gordon Churchill, D.S.O., served overseas as a Vickers machine-gunner from 1916 to 1919. From 1939 to 1945 he served with the Fort Garry Horse and was commanding officer of the First Canadian armoured carrier regiment in northwest Europe. I am sure all veterans will be pleased with his 90205-6-120
Pension Act
appointment. His understanding of the problems of veterans, and his interest in their welfare, will be of great value to all of them.
It is interesting to note that most of the members of the standing committee are veterans, and that many of them belong to the Canadian Legion. On checking the Parliamentary Guide I note that four members of the C.C.F. party, four members of the Liberal party and 45 members of the Progressive Conservative party are members of the Canadian Legion.
On Vancouver island there are thirty seven branches of the Canadian Legion, eight of them being in my constituency. In the constituency of Nanaimo there are the following branches:
Branch	Location
No. 191		 Chemainus
No. 210		 Lake Cowichan
No. 53		 Duncan
No. 92		 Salt Spring Island
No. 84		 Gulf Islands
No. 171		 Ladysmith
No. 256		 Nanaimo
No. 10		 Nanaimo
I am proud to be a member of Branch No. 256 in Nanaimo. All the Canadian Legion branches in my constituency take an active part in community work. They do not confine their services to veterans but also take part in any worthy project. It is interesting to note that these Legion branches support and sponsor all types of sports and do all they can to help the youth of the district with money, equipment and supervision.
I was interested to learn that the Department of Vetearns Affairs had a staff of 2,000 in 1939. In the training of the members of the organization at that time the staff were told that if they did not have the patience, the understanding, and the sympathy to listen to each veteran's problems and to take the time required to do so properly, regarding the individual's problem as the most important thing in life to him, then they were unfitted for the job they were called upon to do, and that the department would tolerate no such unfitness. I am quite sure that the standards required of the staff of that time are still the standards of the staff today and that a good job is being done.
It is the duty of all hon. members of the standing committee on veterans affairs to keep in mind those instructions given in 1939. It is a privilege and an honour to be a member of this important committee and any hon. member who is not interested enough to keep his attendance up should not be a member of it.
All veterans of Canada will be interested to know that since the Conservative government came into power in 1957 many things

Pension Act
have been done to help them. The Pension Act was thoroughly reviewed. The last previous increase in pensions had been effective January 1, 1952 and a revision was desirable. The following items indicate what was done by the Conservative government. Amendments were made to the Pension Act and to the War Veterans Allowance Act. During the first session of the 24th parliament the standing committee on veterans affairs was set up and a number of important amendments were made to existing legislation, namely amendments to the Veterans Insurance Act, the Returned Soldiers Insurance Act and the Children of War Dead Act.
Continuing the promised review of active veterans legislation, two acts were selected for study during the second session of the twenty fourth parliament, namely the Veterans' Land Act and amendments and the War Service Grants Act and amendments.
I would recommend that the War Veterans Allowance Act be reviewed during this session. The benefit of the doubt should be given to veterans in cases in which some doubt possibly exists, as I am sure that there are veterans who should be getting more consideration.
I might add at this time the following illustration, just taking two veterans out of Canadian Legion Branch No. 10 in Nanaimo, namely, John W. Shorthouse and Matthew Gunniss. Those two veterans certainly are entitled to every consideration the department can give them. Both of these veterans were wounded overseas. When they got out of the army they worked for years. They actually worked when they probably should not have been working. However, they wanted to be on their own. They were extremely independent. However, age has more or less slipped up on them and they are quite old now. I certainly think that any benefit of the doubt should be resolved in their favour. In this instance I do not think there is any doubt at all. But if there is any doubt, I think the decision should be in favour of these two fine men.
In conclusion, I must say that I will support this resolution in full and I am sure that all hon. members here will give it every support.


Mr. Lambert:: At the risk of incurring the displeasure and perhaps causing the discomfiture of hon. members whose interest in this resolution seems to be of a passing nature, may I say there are two items upon which I should like to comment. It is true that a number of the members of this House of Commons have spoken but in my opinion there are two things which should be underlined. First of all, there is in the Pension 
Act a provision which is of a mildly permissive nature whereby the department or the minister may provide domiciliary care for veterans who, for a number of reasons, are unable to look after themselves either because of age or illness. They are not men who are ill in the true sense of the word, in that they should occupy active treatment beds in veterans hospitals. In Edmonton we have one such home for veterans at the former government house.
I must draw to the attention of the members of this committee the fact that this is a well run and happy establishment. Unfortunately, however, it is only about a third of the size required, with the result that active treatment beds in our veterans hospitals in the region are occupied by men who would be far happier and far better looked after in such a type of establishment. I am sure that there are many other regions within the country where this could be done.
As a result of world war I we are now getting a greater number of men in this age category and in this particular category of chronic illness. They are the responsibility of society in one way or another. There is no way of trying to sweep their condition under any carpet. They are veterans. They served their country. Many of them are suffering from advanced age or increased disability because of the rigours of their war service many years ago. If we do not look after them in domiciliary care establishments, they must go on relief or they must be placed in some other public institution; but wherever they are they are still the responsibility of society. I would put it to the members of this committee that their true place is under the wing of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I would suggest to the minister that this is one area of fruitful inquiry in order to see whether the department could not extend its facilities for this particular group of veterans.
Before long there will also be an increasing number of veterans of world war II who may fit into this category. It is not merely a matter of a transitory stage where you can deal with a group of men over a short period of time.
The second point I wish to make is one that has been adverted to by a number of hon. members who have spoken this afternoon, I refer to the benefit of the doubt provision under the Pensions Act. Since my entering parliament in 1957 I believe 90 per cent of the cases of trouble with veterans pensions that have been referred to me have dealt with this difficult position of veterans of world war I where medical examinations on discharge were of a cursory nature, where records were scanty or practically nonexistent and where the initial work of the

pension commission was rather restrictive. We all know-and we need not hide this knowledge-that the initial handling of veterans pensions was rather difficult. Fortunately there has been a change of philosophy and a change of mentality so that veterans now get a better break. The condition is not quite the same with veterans of world war II. Their documentation is in much better shape and they receive much better medical examinations.
For instance, upon coming out of prisoner of war camp I underwent four days of extensive medical examination, and within three months I went through another three days of examination prior to discharge. So there is plenty on record in so far as I am concerned. I am sure that is the experience of most men who came out of the forces after world war II. It is to the credit of the Department of National Defence, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the authorities that this was done. I am sure it is going to save a great deal of trouble in the future.
I wish to come back to the position of these elderly veterans of world war I, and particularly this matter of the 50 per cent disability and whether the widow is entitled to a continuing pension. If her husband did not receive a 50 per cent disability pension, or unless he dies of wounds directly attributable to his war service she is not entitled to any pension. This has caused a great deal of hardship and I am sure there are many, many cases where a little more humane, a little more intelligent interpretation of the facts and a little more generous interpretation of the benefit of the doubt clause would relieve a great deal of this hardship. After all, the alternative for a great many of these people is to become a charge on the state somewhere along the line. Why not bring them under their proper category here under veterans affairs? The cost all comes out of the same pocket eventually, that of the taxpayer.
There is only one thing further I wish to say in this connection. In many cases when the decision of the pension commission is anounced that the disability is not attributable to war service, or that the condition is not aggravated by war service, there has been a long lapse of time. I would put it to the members of this house that in world war II particularly there were large numbers of prisoners of war. I know from personal experience that many of my fellow prisoners of war are now developing symptoms of maladies which are attributable to the time they spent as prisoners of war. They were told by doctors that this might happen. I remember in my own case I was told I was perfectly 90205-6-120J
Pension Act
all right, but that perhaps 15 or 20 years hence something might develop.
I would underline this particular point. That in the case of former prisoners of war or men who have undergone rather rigorous experiences where the after-effects may be delayed, a good, hard look should be given to their present circumstances, and their conditions should be interpreted in the light of those circumstances.
As a member of the Montgomery branch No. 24 of the Canadian Legion, which lays claim to the largest membership of any Canadian Legion branch in Canada, it is my great pleasure to address the members of this house this afternoon.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Chairman, I am rising simply because of a statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, who I am sure had no intention of misrepresenting the record when he said there had been no change since 1952 in the scale of pensions until this government came into power. Of course, the hon. gentleman overlooked the change that was made and announced in Mr. Harris' budget in 1957. I feel, therefore, that in order to have the record straight I should put on Hansard the paragraph from Mr. Harris' budget speech. This will be found in Hansard for May 14, 1957, at page 2221. The then minister of finance said:
We propose to increase the scales of payments under the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. In brief, the basic monthly scale for total disability under the Pension Act will be increased from $125 to $150, or if married from $170 to $200. The widow's pension will be raised from $100 to $115. Under the War Veterans Allowance Act the increase in the married rate will be from $108 to $120 a month. The increased payments will be as from July 1 and the total cost will be about $25 million in a full year and $19 million in this fiscal year.
I think it is all the more important to put this on the record as it has been the systematic policy of the propagandists of the present government to make comparisons between what happened in the last full fiscal year when the Liberals were in office with what has happened since, so that they can by that devious method lay claim to all the changes that were made in that budget of 1957 which, if added together, will be found to be a more substantial increase in social security in that one budget than has been made ever since by the present government.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman last evening, and we on this side of the house have taken very little of the time of the committee. It does seem to me I should be allowed to make this statement without interruption, because we have

Pension Act
listened to one member after another getting up in this committee and saying what a tremendous amount has been done by the present government.
I have never failed to give the present government credit for the few achievements it has accomplished, but I do deplore and object to this utter misrepresentation of the record-


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and to the fact-


James Stanley Speakman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought we were discussing a resolution, and not the records of either the past or the present government.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. There has been a certain leniency here because I felt the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was making a correction, as to what he thought had been said incorrectly before. However, I would ask the hon. member not to develop this into a full speech.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly not go beyond the scope of the debate as it has taken place up to now and I promise you that I will make no eulogies of former ministers or the present minister, or introduce any of the other extraneous things that have been introduced in practically every speech today.
I am dealing with a statement that was made by an hon. member, and I think by some other hon. members. I shall in a very few minutes deal with this statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, a statement that was not correct, and I am sure he did not mean to make a statement that was not correct.
Very substantial changes were made to the Pension Act and other veterans' legislation in 1957 by the former administration, and this pretence that there were no changes should not be allowed to continue.


Mr. Mailhews:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. It is quite interesting to see the change in this attitude-he is quite worried now-from what it was when he was occupying a bench on the other side of the house.


Charles Edward Rea: Perhaps the hon. member would please tell me what is his point of order.


Mr. Hicks:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a very short time to say a few words on this resolution. I wish to congratulate the minister on bringing this matter to this stage at the present time.

I have received many letters and some resolutions, and there were a great many discussions last year in my constituency concerning this matter. The same activity is again evident this year and Canadian Legion members are waiting with anticipation and are hoping that something of value will come out of this session. I am informed that 30 per cent of all Canada's war veterans allowance recipients live in British Columbia, and many of those are in the lower Fraser Valley and on the coast. There are six very active Legion branches in the Fraser valley, and we have been able to be of some assistance to quite a few members. The members are delighted that this act is to be amended and, like many others, wait with anticipation to see what these amendments will bring forth. I, too, am very much in favour of having an amendment made to the War Veterans' Allowance Act.


Mr. Webb:: I, too, would like to say a few words at this time on behalf of the veterans of Canada. In the riding I have the honour to represent there are 16 branches of the Canadian Legion. It has been my privilege on many occasions to visit meetings of these branches and attend their social gatherings, and may I say right now that there is no finer group of Canadians today than the members of the Canadian Legion. I have had heart to heart talks with many of these men and I know that if another war were to start tomorrow these same men would be willing to defend their country and loved ones again.
I cannot stress too strongly the importance of this measure. As has been stated already in this committee, I am sure that all the Canadian people will be proud to share their portion of the cost of this legislation.
May I now turn to another urgent question and one which I think merits immediate consideration, namely the need to give re-boards to many of our Canadian veterans? I know many veterans who are definitely entitled to a pension but who, because of previous decisions and red tape which is apparently insurmountable, have been unable to qualify. As a result, they have been deprived of justice. I am certain that consideration of this question is uppermost in the mind of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, a man who can and will speak from authority becauses of his own personal experience.


The Chairman:: Shall the motion carry? The Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There may be someone else who would like to speak. If so, I will give the floor to him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister does not close the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was hoping that perhaps I might, that is all.
(Translation):


Mr. Dubois:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to associate myself with previous speakers in commending the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) for introducing this resolution to increase the pensions paid to disabled veterans and their dependents.
A great many veterans in the house have taken an active part in this discussion. I am proud of their stand, because they have really shown the interest they take in their former comrades at arms.
In my riding of Richmond-Wolfe there are four branches of the Canadian Legion; they are very active and look with particular care after the interests of our veterans. If one of them is in a plight, the local Legion branch hastens to his help and finds the necessary means of alleviating his sufferings or of helping him financially.
At this point, I should like to make a suggestion. Once this bill is passed by the house, there will be a splendid opportunity of directly informing veterans who live far from any branch of the Canadian Legion of the benefits which this government grants to those who fought overseas to save this Canada of ours from the horrors of war.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I congratulate the minister and all those who have taken part in the debate on this resolution.
(Text):


Gordon Minto Churchill: I shall try to make my remarks somewhat brief, but I should like to thank those hon. members who have taken part in the debate so far. They have numbered, I think, 48; a clear indication to the veterans of Canada that their interests are being well represented here in parliament on both sides of the house. I thank those hon. members who have been very kind in their remarks in so far as I myself am concerned, and I am thankful that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is not going to eulogise me, because that is one risk I do not want to run in life.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might do it on another occasion.
I4r. Churchill: There has been general acceptance of this resolution. The committee has expressed itself in favour of increases being made in pensions for disabled veterans and of certain other alterations being made to the act. Details in this respect will be before
Pension Act
us shortly, I hope. The debate, as it has proceeded, and the many cases which have been cited, have shown that the problem of veterans is a continuing one.
We still have a few survivors of the South African war. There are the veterans of the first world war, the veterans of the second world war and the veterans of the Korean war. Then, of course, there are those who have served or are serving in various posts throughout the world either under NATO or for the United Nations and who, though not necessarily engaged in conflict, are running certain risks with regard to health. Then, again, we must not forget those who suffer injury or disablement in the course of their regular duties in the armed forces. These eventually end up within the scope of this particular act in some instances because of the dangerous nature of the occupations in which they are engaged. Thus we have a continuing problem which must be faced and met by parliament, and which has been met by parliament over the years.
At the same time we have to recognize that the problems which continually arise are not easily solved. Example after example has been given to us in the course of the last two days of difficult, marginal cases where in the opinion of the hon. member speaking something further should have been done. So although the Pension Act has been in existence for a long time and although about 40 years of experience has been acquired with regard to dealing with veterans, in the year 1961 we are nevertheless still made aware of the problems of veterans.
We have not reached final solution with regard to some of these matters. I think it is commendable that so many members have taken an interest in this piece of legislation. It is commendable that the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations have presented briefs to whichever government was in power, year after year, bringing to the attention of the government the problems of veterans and suggestions as to solving those problems.
The veterans' contribution, either through members here in the House of Commons, or through organizations across the country, has been of substantial assistance to our comrades in arms who suffered more than most of us during the course of their service overseas. We have a continuing obligation to them, which we can fulfil in part through our activity here in the House of Commons and through amending legislation where that appears to be necessary.
Time will not permit me, Mr. Chairman, to deal with some of the particular problems which were raised by many who spoke. The

Pension Act
problem raised by the members from Newfoundland, although it perhaps should have been decided long before this, is something that is rather new to me; it has come to my attention within the last few months and I have been looking into it. The standing committee on veterans affairs should look at this problem again this session.
The same thing applies to war veterans allowances. Although many members mentioned that that act is not under consideration at this moment, there is a danger of confusing people's minds in a discussion of the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act. Nevertheless, again the standing committee on veterans affairs can consider it and make suggestions. I will go this far and say that already commencing in November, I have instituted a study of the War Veterans Allowance Act to see what is required in the way of amendments thereto and to consider how quickly those amendments might be undertaken. I can make no promises; I am making no promises at this time. I am indicating that I have the matter under advisement and have instituted the necessary study, and I am making a study myself of the War Veterans Allowance Act.
With regard to other problems of veterans that were mentioned, such as merchant seamen, gallantry awards, South African veterans and so on, those are problems which we cannot discuss adequately when we are dealing with amendments to the Pension Act, but the standing committee on veterans affairs can look at these matters and bring them to the attention of myself and of the house. There will be another opportunity, of course, and that is when the estimates of the Depart-met of Veterans Affairs are before the committee.
There is one subject that was touched upon by most of the members who spoke in the course of the debate, and that is the application of the benefit of the doubt clause in the Pension Act. They did this, as I understand it, not in criticism of the pension commission, which is held in high regard by members of parliament. Over the years the pension commission and its predecessor, the board of pension commissioners, performed a very valuable service and an extremely arduous one in assessing the cases that came before them. I do not think anyone is critical in a serious way of the pension commission.
On the other hand, the members, as I assess what they have been saying during the last two days, think that the pension commission perhaps has not interpreted the benefit of the doubt clause in the way in which people have expected it to be interpreted. I think it has been said on many occasions that the benefit of

the doubt clause has entered into the consideration of the pension commissioners whenever they have had a case before them; but this is an old and continuing problem, and I hope that we can look at it again this year in the standing committee on veterans affairs and in consultation with the pension commission.
As hon. members have rightly pointed out, the commission is an independent body, and properly so. It derives its authority from parliament. It is not subject to the influence of the minister or of any member and makes its own decision and its own interpretation of the act which grants it authority. That being so, our job here as members of the House of Commons is to give assistance to the pension commission, either by amendment of the act under which they operate or by indicating to them the purpose and intent of parliament, as we understand it, with regard to their interpretation of the act. They may not accept our advice, but, on the other hand, I think it would not hurt for them to be aware of the understanding that members of parliament have with regard to this particular clause, clause 70, of the Pension Act. The clause has a long history. I have looked into that history. In 1930 a special committee sat on the problems of pensions and returned soldiers' problems and reported in 1930. The chairman of that committee was the Hon. C. G. Power. It was as a result of that committee's investigation that the benefit of the doubt clause was incorporated in the statutes. When the committee submitted its report, and I am quoting now from page 420 of the report of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems, it stated as follows:
In addition to the foregoing questions of organization and procedure the committee proposes the enactment of a general rule governing the commission, the pension tribunal and the appeal court, whereby all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favour of the applicant, who is to be given the benefit of the doubt, the rules stating that the applicant is to be relieved from the obligation of giving conclusive evidence in favour of his right, an obligation which it is in many cases quite impossible for him to discharge.
Before reaching this conclusion the committee heard from many eminent witnesses. Some of the examples that we have heard in the house today are similar to the examples given 31 years ago by people who appeared before that committee. General Sir Arthur Currie, who was then living, gave an example of a signaller, and I quote:
He was 37 years of age, big, strong and in perfect physical condition.
That is when he enlisted. General Currie then went on to describe the conditions under which he served in France, as follows:
Day and night, rain or shine, he must get out and keep the lines repaired. It is not a case of eight

or 10 hours a day, it is a case of 24 hours a day, and for days on end, always working in the battle area. His shelter at the best of times is nothing more than a thin sheet of corrugated iron or an old piece of tarpaulin; it may be nothing more than a shell hole in the broken and poisoned earth. Yet that man must be out all the time in all kinds of weather, wet to the skin, cold, lousy. If he does occupy a rude dug-out the chances are he has rats for companions. He is always in the battle area, shelled and bombed. Do you mean to tell me that those conditions will not affect adversely a man's health?
Then he went on to give the subsequent history of this chap who suffered certain pains and extreme nervousness and was considered to have sciatica for which he received a pension. Subsequently his case was looked at again and was diagnosed as spinal arthritis for which no permanent cure could be effected. In those bad days the board had to reach the conclusion that they could not recognize spinal arthritis as a pensionable disability, so the man lost his pension for sciatica and received nothing at all. The benefit of the doubt clause was incorporated into the act in order to remove that type of difficulty.
The second case, and the only other one I will give, was recalled to my mind by the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West who mentioned prisoners of war. There was an instance given in 1930 of a man who had enlisted at the age of 35. In front of Regina trench down on the Somme he received three machine gun bullets in the right leg, fracturing the tibia, and he also received one in the right shoulder. He lay in a shell hole under terrible conditions for four days. The only thing he had to drink was poisoned water in the shell hole. There were two other men in the shell hole with him and one died and the other went mad. This man was hit on Sunday and taken prisoner on the following Thursday. He was treated in Germany, had six operations, was repatriated through Switzerland and had one operation there and one in England. He was returned as a stretcher case to Canada and discharged in 1919 with a 15 per cent pension for the wound in his leg. During his time as a prisoner he developed a stomach condition. No record is available of his medical history while he was a prisoner of war. It is not available to anyone. He developed a stroke. It was decided by the federal appeal board that it was hemiplegia from which he suffered and they gave their orders as follows:
After consideration of the evidence and record the board finds that cerebral hemorrhage resulting in hemiplegia is not attributed to military service. The appeal is disallowed.
These are two examples from that year. Members today have given other examples from the present time. The benefit of the doubt clause was incorporated into the act
Pension Act
to make provision for men who could not provide documentary evidence as to the hazards they underwent when they were overseas, whether in the first war or the second, and many men in the second world war suffered just as grievously as men in the first war and suffered from exposure in just the same way. In 1930 that clause was introduced into the act and subsequently it has been amended on three occasions. It will not take me very long to put on the record the four versions of the benefit of the doubt clause so that anyone looking at this debate in the future will have a ready reference. In the 1930 statutes of Canada the section read as follows:
73. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant.
In 1946 an amendment was made, the section was renumbered 63 and it read as follows:
63. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
The change there was the addition of the words "and presumptions". In 1948 a further change was made, and section 63 of the 1948 statutes read as follows:
63. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
The change there was from "shall be entitled to draw" to "shall draw". Finally in 1952 another change was made. The section now is numbered 70 and it reads as follows:
70. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which means that it is not necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.
The change there is the introduction of the words "is entitled to" instead of "shall be entitled to". I put these four versions on
KGUSjti OF COMMONS
Pension Act
the record for the benefit of those who are interested in this problem to show the effort that has been made from 1930 to 1952 to amend the benefit of the doubt clause so that it will be more suitable in the circumstances in which the board of pension commissioners has to apply it. My judgment is that no matter how frequently we amend the clause the question will still be determined on the basis of interpretation, and that is precisely what General Currie said in 1930. That is how it is applied.
All that I can say further in regard to this matter is that from the number of members who have spoken about the benefit of the doubt clause and from the interest that has been shown in the application of that clause the pension commissioners may reasonably reach the conclusion that parliament is seriously interested in-what shall I say-a generous application of the benefit of the doubt clause. In the ten years that I have been here I have heard no complaint about the pension commission being overgenerous in granting money from the treasury to applicants for pension, and I think they have been very sound in that regard. We are not asking them to lower the barriers and let anybody in. Bona fide cases, as they have considered them in the past, should be the ones on which the board will finally adjudicate, but in these bona fide cases where men have actually served and have suffered from their service I think it is the opinion of parliament that the benefit of the doubt clause should apply.
As some members have said, it certainly should apply in the case of the older world war I veterans. Many of these men, because of an independence of character that cynical people do not sometimes recognize, have refused over the years to accept a pension or to report for pension purposes and now that they are in their 70's they are beginning to find that it might have been wiser to report for examination in days gone by.
A very close friend of mine who has since died comes to my mind. He was a 30 per cent pensioner and should have been an 80 per cent pensioner all his life but he never gave up during the course of his experience from 1917 until just two or three years ago. He was granted an 80 per cent pension when he finally appeared at an advanced age before a board of examiners. He was typical of many men who served overseas in the first world war, men who simply would not admit that they needed assistance from anyone. These older veterans of the first world war cannot produce documents. There were no filing cabinets available on the field of action during the first world war, and I think it is the feeling of the committee that

those men who cannot produce evidence should have the benefit of the doubt. I say this, bearing in mind these two cases which were brought before the commission in 1930.
I argued this matter in the House of Commons in 1953, 1954 and before the estimates committee in 1955. I have argued at different times that the benefit of the doubt should be applied to first world war veterans who suffered from the effects of gas. Many men who suffered gas attacks in the first world war ended up in the hospital. Others got as far as the dressing station and were returned to their units, while still others did not report at all. Who is to say that years later the effects of this poison gas do not seriously destroy their physical functions? Medical opinion may say that there are no after effects of poison gas. Unless medical opinion will quite flatly state that, then I used to argue, and I would be inclined to argue now, that the pension commission should give the benefit of the doubt to a man who could show, through the action in which his regiment was engaged or through affidavits from his companions that he was subjected to the effects of poison gas.
This is just another example that relates to veterans of the first world war. As time goes on I think there will be less trouble with second world war veterans because the records have been much more adequately kept. The hon. member for Greenwood will recall that when he returned in 1918 or 1919, I suppose, like the rest of us, all he had to say was that he was A-l and he could get on board ship. If he did not say he was A-l he had to stay in England or France until further notice. This was the easy way, I think, of getting discharged in 1919. In 1946 it was not nearly as easy. You had to go through a very stiff medical board before you were released, so I think we will have less trouble in the future with the veterans of the second world war than we have had with those in the earlier conflict whose records were not complete.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman I would just say that the veterans of Canada should be pleased at the interest the committee has taken in this problem during the last two days. I believe the veterans of Canada are well represented here on both sides of the house. There has been a serious interest in this measure, and we have not engaged in more than just a mild flurry of political interchange. I would have loved to have taken part in one exchange that occurred a while ago, but I thought I would abstain and save it for some other occasion because we are not in a controversial field when we are dealing with veterans problems. I feel that all of us here, no matter what party

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
we represent, have an interest m veterans. We recognize what they have done and the service that they have given to their country.
I feel it was a privilege to serve. This is not said very often by veterans, but now I am getting to an age where I think perhaps I can say some of these things. It is a privilege to serve. Many men who would have liked to have served were denied that privilege. I think veterans should recognize that fact and consider it a real privilege to have been physically fit and able to serve their country in time of distress. Nobody would think now of glorifying war or anything of that nature. We hope that our efforts during this twentieth century will result in permanent peace. At the same time we have to stand ready to cope with whatever perils may confront us in the future.
These men whom we have been considering during the last few days, the disability pensioners, the men who actually suffered, are the ones who have set the example for young Canada to follow. May we not forget them or their dependents during the course of their lives. They gave in the service of their country, and it is up to the country to play its part now. The Pension Act which we are amending will in part, and only in part, repay to our disability pensioners the debt that Canada owes them.


Mr.   Carier@: Mr. Chairman, I am not seeking to prolong the debate. I merely rise to express my thanks to the minister for the statement he has just made. I am grateful to him for the attitude which he has displayed toward the veteran, but in particular I want to express my appreciation for the statement which he made with respect to the veterans of Newfoundland, the forestry veterans, and the special problems that we have brought before him during this debate.
At the same time, I should like to express my personal regret that at this resolution stage preceding the introduction of the bill the two members from Newfoundland who sit with the government have not intervened in support of the representations which were made. We hope that they will do so on another occasion.
Resolution reported, and concurred in.
Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-67, to amend the Pension Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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



DEPARTMENT OP CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Jacques Flynn: Citizenship and immigration, vote No. 47-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, not in any contentious spirit at all. I should like to make exactly the same suggestion as I made last year. I wonder if the minister would be agreeable to having the administration item stood over until the end of the consideration of her estimates, on the understanding that no general debate would be resumed on the various branches of the department under the departmental administration item. It seems to me that during the last two years this course has made for more orderly debate.
If I may go further, I would express a preference and our preference would be to start with item No. 51, the immigration branch. We feel the greater part of the debate will be on that item and that course will probably reduce the debate on the citizenship items.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am quite agreeable to that. However, I believe we got into a rather confusing situation last year, if my memory serves me well. We could not decide whether or not the departmental administration item should stand until the conclusion of the consideration of the Indian affairs branch. However, I would suggest that we start with items 51, 52, 53 and 54, then take items 48, 49 and 50 and then take item 47 because there is an administrative item also under Indian affairs branch. I would suggest that procedure if it meets with the approval of the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That procedure would be quite agreeable to us.


Jacques Flynn: Is it agreed that we proceed as indicated by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Immigration branch-
51. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,388,640.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, it is only eight months since the debate took place on my department's estimates for the fiscal year 1960-61. At that time I reviewed and explained in some detail the attitude and general policy of this government, so far as immigration is concerned. The report on my remarks at that time will be found commencing on page 4711 of Hansard for June 9, 1960. The outline of policy which I presented at that time is still valid and I do not think that I need to take the time of the committee by repeating now what I said on that occasion. I shall therefore limit my remarks to a few brief comments on the most
1900	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration significant developments in the immigration field during the period which has elapsed since we last discussed these estimates.
The final reports for 1960 show that the total of immigrants admitted to Canada during the calendar year was 104,111- This figure shows very little change from the previous year, 1959, when 106,928 immigrants came forward. During the discussion of estimates in June last I indicated that it was then my expectation that the numbers coming forward in 1960 would be slightly in excess of those for the previous year. On a month to month basis the actual number of immigrants coming forward during 1960 was slightly ahead of 1959 up to the end of September. From that point on the figures took a downward turn, owing in part to the prevalence of buoyant economic and employment conditions in the European countries from which we draw most of our immigrants; and also in part to the fact that many of the sponsors in Canada, faced with uncertainty as to their own employment situation in Canada during the winter months, were less inclined to press forward with their applications to bring forward their relatives from overseas. This situation is normal and understandable in view of the difficulty economic circumstances through which we are now passing in this country, contrasted with the usual economic and employment opportunities reported from so many of the countries of Europe.
Despite the over-all slight decrease in the total movement of immigrants to Canada, we experienced in 1960 in certain sectors small gains, which are gratifying and give encouragement for the future. There was a slight upturn during 1960 in the movements from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Germany. Traditionally we look to the United Kingdom to supply a larger number of immigrants annually than we usually receive from any other country; and during 1960 the position of the United Kingdom was very largely, though not completely, restored to its accustomed position in first place among the countries of origin of our immigrant population. Actually the final totals for the year show that 20,853 British immigrants came to Canada in 1960 which was an increase of approximately 1,500 over 1959, whereas 21,308 Italian immigrants were admitted-they were the second group-with the Italian movement slipping past the British total by a small margin during the final month of 1960.
The most noteworthy decreases were in the movement of Italian and Chinese immigrants, the last mentioned decline being undoubtedly the result of a sharp falling off in the number of applications for admission, which in turn was probably a consequence of the investigation into illegal Chinese immigration, which


was actively under way during most of 1960. Other small but encouraging increases took place in the movements from Austria, Finland, France, Portugal and Yugoslavia. With one or two exceptions, there is probably nothing particularly significant about these individual fluctuations, except to show that there is a continuing interest in the possibilities of continued emigration to Canada among the nationals of many countries, and that we continue to be in a position where we can encourage and stimulate suitable increases in these movements when economic and other circumstances justify.
I am sure that there will be general agreement with the proposition that Canada should continue to maintain its position over the years as a country which welcomes considerable numbers of suitable immigrants to its shores and I am personally satisfied that, even in the face of formidable economic difficulties, we have succeeded in maintaining our position in this regard during 1960.
I think it is important for us to keep in mind in this connection that, by maintaining a suitable flow of immigrants to Canada, we not only provide better economic opportunities for these immigrants themselves, but we also add to the economic productivity, the employment opportunities and the national wealth of Canada as a whole.
A great deal of emphasis has been placed in recent months on the question of employment and unemployment, and concern has been expressed that we should not develop a situation in Canada which through large scale immigration increases the difficulties of providing employment for those already in Canada. This is a legitimate concern but there are other aspects to this question which need to be taken into account if the situation is to be viewed in the proper perspective.
It is, for example, significant to note that of the 104,000 persons who came to Canada as immigrants in 1960 almost half were persons, chiefly wives and other dependants, who were not destined to the labour force. Over 8,000 of the 53,000 immigrants destined to the labour force were in the managerial and professional categories. Large numbers of the others were in the clerical, commercial, service and agricultural fields, with a sharp decline in the labourer classification, most of whom, of course, came forward as close relatives of persons already in Canada and not because of their selection on any occupational basis.
More significant still, we brought forward in 1960, 1,583 newcomers who established themselves in their own businesses and provided employment for 6,189 individuals. The value of the businesses established by these newcomers is known to be in excess of $18i

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
million and down payments were made in connection with these businesses in excess of $9J million.
So far as agriculture is concerned, reports were received in 1960 of some 647 newcomers who had bought farms of their own, while 101 had rented agricultural land. Some 786 immigrant owners or operators became established in this manner and the total number of persons employed in these enterprises numbered 1,072. The value of the agricultural land involved amounted to $11.7 million and down payments on these purchases amounted to more than $4J million.
From what I have just said, Mr. Chairman, it will be evident that the immigrants who have come to Canada continue to show the initiative, industry and enterprise which enlarge and increase the employment opportunities, productive capacities and national wealth of this country.
What I have said with respect to our activities in this field during 1960 is, of course, only a continuation of what has been the continuing objective in the field of immigration over a long period of years. For example, in the past ten years 6,000 businesses have been established and 5,400 farms purchased by post-war newcomers to Canada. The value of these farms and businesses amounts to $140 million. It is conservatively estimated that they have provided employment for 35,000 persons.
It is well known that most immigrants are willing to work hard and sacrifice much in order to establish themselves securely in Canada. This is borne out by figures which indicate that they paid $69 million, or almost half the value of their businesses and farms, in cash down payments. This would indicate that not only do some immigrants-for example, United States citizens-bring substantial savings with them to Canada but also that immigrants are hard savers.
There has been a very marked upswing in the number of immigrants establishing businesses in the past two or three years. Roughly one quarter of the businesses established during the last ten years were bought in 1960.
There are certain patterns emerging from the statistics for business and farm settlements. In the business field just over 40 per cent of the settlements have been in Ontario, 30 per cent in British Columbia and 20 per cent in Quebec. Germans have established the largest number of businesses, followed by Dutch, British and Italians. The average immigrant makes his purchase from three to six years after his arrival in Canada.
In agriculture just over 50 per cent of the immigrant farmers favoured Ontario.
Next popular are British Columbia and Quebec. The average farmer spends five years working for someone else before buying his own property. Out of nearly 7,000 farms bought by immigrants over the last ten years, nearly 4,000 were in Ontario, just over 1,000 in British Columbia and 600 in Quebec. Dutch people bought two thirds of the farms and have brought experience, skill and new techniques to Canadian agriculture. The Canadian economy has been widened and strengthened by the influx of these new businessmen and farmers.
I should like now to make a brief reference to one of the special features of our activities in the immigration field during 1960, namely the special movements connected with world refugee year. During world refugee year, which officially ended on June 30, 1960, there was a most heartening response on the part of community groups, private and church organizations, and governments generally, to the special appeal launched under the leadership of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees. These efforts, many of them of a special nature, have continued throughout the period following the close of world refugee year, and the special facilities and arrangements made by the government through the immigration branch to encourage and foster this nation-wide response have been continued up to the present time and are being continued in suitable fashion.
During the 18 month period from the beginning of world refugee year to the end of 1960 more than 4,500 individuals were admitted to Canada under special refugee arrangements. The most notable feature of these arrangements was, of course, the special movements of tubercular refugees. The first of these movements, consisting of 100 selected t.b. cases, together with their dependents, entered Canada in the latter part of 1959 and the early part of 1960. A second movement, consisting of slightly more than 100 tubercular refugees and their dependents, came forward to Canada in the summer months of July and August.
Here I must pay tribute to the co-operation and help extended to the government by the various provincial governments and health departments throughout the country. These governments assumed the responsibility for the health and hospital care of the individuals brought forward and it is most reassuring to note that so far as the first two movements are concerned, well over two thirds of the t.b. refugees themselves had completed their active treatment and been discharged from hospital before the end of 1960. Only a relatively small number continued to require institutional care as of December 31 last.
1902	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
In consequence of these most encouraging results the government has recently announced, with the co-operation and consent of the provinces concerned, that it is prepared to admit a third group of tubercular refugees, together with their dependents, under the special arrangements which were established for the previous movements. The selection of this third group is now under way and it is expected that the movement will have been completed before the end of March, 1961.
I should like finally to say a word about the Immigration Act itself. It will be recalled that the speech from the throne referred to the expectation that a revised Immigration Act would be laid before parliament for consideration. Inquiries have been made from time to time as to when a draft bill is likely to be brought down. No one is more concerned about this than I am, and every effort has been directed toward the achievement of the desired objective of a full and complete revision of the act; but I am afraid there is very little I can add at this time to what I have said on previous occasions in reply to questions about the timing of this matter.
It will be appreciated, I am sure, that the timing of the presentation of any draft bill for consideration depends on a great number of factors which I am not in a position to predict at the moment. Chief among these is the general timetable for the business of the house and the progress of the government's legislative program as a whole.
Representations and inquiries have also been received in recent months from a number of important national organizations, notably the Canadian Welfare Council, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Labour Congress. Some of the representations received urged that more time be taken to complete the revision of the legislation and to make it possible for them to undertake a more complete and thorough study of the issues involved.
In connection I should like to repeat the assurances which I gave on this matter during the discussion of our estimates at the last session. The fullest opportunity will be given to all interested organizations to present their views on the general questions relating to immigration policy, and also on the form and content of the draft legislation itself.
The government will be only too glad to receive whatever help and advice these important and responsible organizations can give in order to ensure that the form and content of the legislation, when it is finally passed by parliament, will be as satisfactory as it is humanly possible to make it.


Mr. Crestohl:: Mr. Chairman, like all other members of this house I was certainly very pleased to hear the report of the minister, especially in reference to the activities of the department and the government with respect to world refugee year. Of course, when the announcement was first made in the house it was received and acclaimed as indeed being an effort by the department to deal with the problems with what we like to refer to as the humane touch; the human touch, in fact. We certainly greet that with much pleasure and we are very glad to note that an announcement will be made that another group will be admitted very shortly.
Of course, dealing with hard core cases of immigrants is always a problem and the country is aware of it. It is certainly encouraging that the first effort has turned out very successfully, and this certainly augurs well for the treatment of further hard core cases whenever the humane touch requires it.
On the other hand, I was rather disappointed that the minister's report to the house seemed to be one purely of statistics. It was a statistical report as to how many came in from various places. Perhaps such a report should be made to the house in a statistical form, although we can get this information in the printed reports that reach our desks from the various departments. I had hoped that the minister would put a little of that humaneness into her report which the country had hoped would be ever present when she was summoned to that portfolio. The statistics she gave to the house, however, are completely devoid, apart from the question of world refugee year, of the humane touch which is required in dealing with human beings.


Mr. Graffiey:: You could not have been listening to the speech.


Leon David Crestohl: I would like to say to the hon. member for Brome-


William Heward Grafftey: Brome-Missisquoi.


Leon David Crestohl: -Brome-Missisquoi, who has a reputation for being very erudite, that he should certainly know and remember the old adage that children should be seen and not heard, unless they are very wet; and the hon. member is very wet.


William Heward Grafftey: That is very smart; that is quite funny.


An hon. Member:: He will be here long after you have gone.


Leon David Crestohl: That, too, remains to be seen.
I do not know who undertakes to prophesy. You know the old saying "only fools prophesy". I am wondering whether members of the government are concerned because I

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
said that the minister-I may have touched her sensitivities, or theirs; I am sure I have not touched hers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Leon David Crestohl: I did not crown her with that glory which she probably expected to receive, because the country had hoped that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, as a woman, would bring a little more of that understanding, that family understanding, that motherly understanding, which I found was completely absent from her report.
The hon. lady's reference to the revision of the act was expected, but I am again disturbed by the fact that the minister has served notice that this revision may not come as soon as was expected. The country has been clamouring continuously for a revision of this act, and I think the time has come. The minister would certainly disappoint not only parliament but the whole country if a revision of the act is not brought down. It was mentioned on several occasions by the hon. lady during the last session. It was promised in the speech from the throne. Certainly we are expecting it. The minister has said that other organizations and people will have an opportunity to be heard, and that is true, but I am hoping that the hon. lady will also see to it that a parliamentary committee is appointed to study the proposed draft bill and that such a committee will be empowered to hear witnesses and receive representations from the various organizations in the country which might be interested.
All this certainly makes it clear that the minister and the government have not yet adopted a consistent policy with regard to immigration. I have been in rather close touch with immigration activities and it has been interesting to observe the minister's constant^ shifting from one position to another. Her juggling, her almost mercury-like policy with regard to immigration shows she is unable to keep her course steady in any shape, form or manner. It is a vacillating policy. The hon. lady sometimes takes one position and then, by order in council, she shifts that position and annuls the position she had taken.
During the past 12 months the minister has claimed she has been misquoted with regard to statements she is deemed to have made as to policy. She has blamed the press. She has blamed officials in her department, who are completely blameless, for errors in understanding her policy. She has been blaming others right and left.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I have listened in patience to this, and I expect the hon. member to criticize me, but if he says
I have criticized members of my department I really must take exception to that remark.


Leon David Crestohl: I do not know whether to call it criticism but at one time the minister did make a statement that her policy was misunderstood because of officials in her department.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I never did.


Leon David Crestohl: 
Norman Platt Lambert: That is pure punditry based on conjecture.


Leon David Crestohl: I am reading from an editorial which appeared in a very prominent paper in this country. It continues:
To the Italian community here and to many others, the obvious intent was a drastic curtailment of Italian immigration.
Of course, the minister faced a problem there and she quickly had to retrace her steps, which is not an easy thing to do. Some newspapers have said it was probably a very brave thing for the minister to have done. Let us see what the Toronto Daily Star said on April 23, 1959 under a big headline: "Mrs. Fairclough Retreats in Disorder":
That was an amazing performance by Hon. Ellen Fairclough in announcing the withdrawal of the order in council banning immigration of relatives of some Canadian residents. It was good riddance of a bad order. But Mrs. Fairclough's petulant tone and attempt to throw a smokescreen over the government's retreat made her sound like a little girl who had lost a piece of candy.


Jacques Flynn: May I suggest the hon. member call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.


Leon David Crestohl: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was talking about the vacillating government policy on immigration. Perhaps in modern language I could describe it in this way. The government seems to be playing its immigration policy by ear, meeting conditions as it sees them without having any fixed guide in its policy on immigration. If the government is playing it by ear I would consider it pitiable because the consequences are not reflected in any other tones than groans and anguish from heartaches and heartbreaks in preventing the linking together of broken families, and by increasing human sorrow. That is very clearly reflected in just a few headlines that I should like to read into the record. In the Toronto Telegram of April 3 we find the following:
Immigrant family curb aimed at limiting influx of Italians.


An hon. Member:: What year?


Leon David Crestohl: The year 1959. In the Globe and Mail of April 3, 1959, we find the following:
New curbs put on immigration for relatives.
In the issue of April 2, 1959, we find the following:
New immigration bar shocks city newcomers.
Again, the Globe and Mail of April 6, 1959:
Skill before kinship new immigration rule.
The Toronto Daily Star, April 3, 1959:
Sixty three thousand Italians hit by immigration cut.
Again, we have the Globe and Mail of June 23, 1960, with a smiling photograph of the minister with the following head note:
She deals in human beings counted in dry statistics.
This, Mr. Chairman, is how the country has been accepting this curb that is being placed on the linking together of families. As I said before, when a motherly woman was assigned to the portfolio it was generally hoped that she would bring to her office an understanding family touch and with benevolence she would help to unite separated families. In fact, when she first took office she declared that that would be one of her main objectives. We were hopeful, Mr. Chairman, but the hopeful were soon disillusioned when with almost Draconian rigidity she enforced the complex and confusing regulations and, unlike ministers before her, she did not often temper mercy with justice, as it was hoped she would.
During her almost four years in office the record shows that she did very little to modify the procedure to join families on the basis of relationship, age, or country of origin. I feel that after almost four years in office the minister should have something more to show in that regard. And now something new has been presented to us. Recently, a new requirement was apparently set up. This was announced by the minister in Guelph only a short while ago when she spoke of immigrants with skills. To make certain that I shall not misquote her, Mr. Chairman, I have her speech and I shall read from page 8 of the text that was provided. This is what she said:
We are doing a great disservice both to the immigrant and to our own community, when we bring to this country people who lack any kind of craft, skill or profession, who have no technical or other form of training suited to the demands of an increasing technical world.
If I were asked what I think is a real test of what makes a desirable immigrant, I think I should have to answer that it is a matter of what he has to contribute to Canadian progress and the strength and welfare of the Canadian community. At first blush that may sound like a selfish yardstick, but I am sure that if you give it a little careful thought you will agree that it is the only honest and sensible one.
No one will disagree very much with that, but will the minister tell the committee- and she has left the country unaware of this fact-whether this is now the top priority of immigration policy, or whether this is in addition to all the other complex problems which exist in the regulations? Does one replace the others, or are they to be dealt with together? In other words, must a person who now wants to immigrate to Canada fall into one of those complicated categories and in addition also be a skilled person?
I should like to illustrate it in another way. For example, can a Canadian citizen bring his father to Canada if his father is not a skilled worker, or can he bring his father to Canada only if he is a skilled worker? I hope the minister will clarify this. Surely it would be harsh to believe that the minister intends to place the importance or the emphasis on skills in preference to close relationship of relatives. Of course, I am of the opinion that it will simply complicate the situation.
Hon. members should be aware in detail of the complications which now exist in our immigration regulations. I have mentioned them on previous occasions and I should like to repeat them now. It is really an academic study so that all hon. members can understand and wrestle with the problem. The act sets out various types of citizens, or gives to different citizens different rights and privileges. I will give a few examples. Citizen A
[The Chairman.]

can bring certain relatives to Canada. Citizen B cannot bring people of the same relationship to Canada simply because they happen to live in another country, and when I speak of another country I am excluding countries behind the iron curtain. I am now speaking of other European or mid-eastern countries. Here is another illustration. Citizen A can bring to Canada certain relatives under certain conditions. Citizen B, who is equally a citizen, cannot bring to Canada people having the same relationship under any conditions. That too results from the fact that his relatives live in another country.
Here is another illustration. Citizen A can bring his parents to Canada regardless of their age. Citizen B, who is equal so far as citizenship is concerned, can only bring his parents to Canada if his father is over 65 and his mother is over 60. That too stems from the fact that they live in another country. Another illustration: Citizen A can bring a brother or a sister to Canada. Citizen B cannot bring a brother or sister simply because they happen to live in another country. Citizen A can bring his fiancee while Citizen B does not have the right to bring his fiancee to this country.
These are only some examples. There are many more similar complications and computations that one must conform with before one can really follow and understand a straightforward policy. Why should all citizens not have the same rights to bring their fathers or mothers to this country? Whether one lives in one country and another lives in another country, they are still fathers and mothers. Why should one citizen not be able to bring his father or mother to this country if they are not of a certain age? Are they different? Is their love or affection different? No.
All these, I say, are matters which require sound and careful study and analysis, and that is why the act should be revised.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: While my hon. friend is pausing may I ask him a question?


Leon David Crestohl: If I will not lose any of the time allotted to me by allowing the question.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As I understand the rules,, you only have to sit down and you can get up and speak for another 30 minutes. Would my hon. friend tell me who was the instigator of these regulations against which he is railing and is it not true that they were instituted by the government of which he was a supporter until 1957?


Leon David Crestohl: I was hoping, in fact I was expecting that the minister would ask that question. We once discussed that point on a previous occasion. I said then that some
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration genius concocted all these combinations and computations which the minister certainly did not think were very nice at that time. However, she has been in office for four years and, having these complaints and knowing about them she is the only one who has been in a position to do anything about them. I have not given credit to whoever that genius was in years gone by. I do not necessarily have to accept or agree with what was done at that time because I am pleased to say that we on this side have no fear of saying that we disagree with a colleague. It may have been a good policy then and perhaps it was the work of a genius. He may have shown signs of genius at that time but the policy is outdated and outmoded. I blame the minister directly because she has been in a position to do something about the matter. I will put the argument this way. Since the minister has done nothing about it, perhaps she agrees with the genius who introduced these regulations.


Mr. Woolliams:: I wonder whether the hon. member would answer a question.


Leon David Crestohl: I will only answer a question, Mr. Chairman, if I will be allowed 30 minutes from the time I sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I was wondering, Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that unless there is unanimous consent it is not possible to take into consideration the time used up by questions. Therefore, if the hon. member does not yield the floor, I will ask the hon. member for Bow River to resume his seat.


Leon David Crestohl: All right, ask the question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now that the hon. member has agreed to answer my question, I wonder whether he would identify this genius. Is it the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate?


Leon David Crestohl: I have not identified him. If the hon. member wants to do it, if he thinks he knows who it was, let him do it. I think the minister did it last year on one occasion. It was admitted. Nobody denied it. We recognize genius when we see it.


An hon. Member:: In the Liberal party?


Leon David Crestohl: Indeed, only in the Liberal party. I should like to draw something to the attention of the minister now that may surprise her a little. I refer to the question of a new policy. Is the minister aware, does she know, did she ever hear, do hon. members of the Conservative party know or are they aware of the immigration credo of their

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration own party laid down at a party convention? Let us see what that credo is. It is quite possible that very few of them have heard about it. I am now referring to Senate Hansard of April 4, 1960, page 498 and a speech made by a member of the other place. At that time this was said:
The Progressive Conservative convention, I notice, adopted the following resolution:
"Whereas a healthy and judicious immigration policy is necessary in order to provide a guaranteed market for Canada's vast natural resources and to reduce our vulnerability in the export market; whereas there are still thousands of refugees desirable as citizens who are not admissible to Canada under current immigration regulations; whereas this convention notes with satisfaction the efforts at the United Nations of Canada's minister of external affairs on behalf of refugees; that this national convention of the Progressive Conservative party recommend to the government-"
I ask members of the government to please note. I continue:
"-that the immigration regulations be amended, to enlarge the categories of admissible immigrants; to redefine the term 'refugee' so as to widen and extend the qualifications for admissibility under this category; consider and if deemed advisable increase and extend the existing facilities and personnel for the processing of immigrants in foreign countries."
Here is a credo on immigration that was approved by the Conservative convention and I ask the minister this question. What has her department done to implement any one of these orders, so to speak, contained in this resolution?
Now these tenets have in no way been implemented. They are noble tenets. I believe this is a good policy for immigration, and that is the program of the Conservative party. What have they done to implement any one of these provisions? For example, the resolution says that it failed to amend the act to enlarge the categories of admissible immigrants. Here, hon. members will note, is an order from the party to enlarge the categories of admissible immigrants. Did the minister do that? Did she do anything in that direction? No, she did nothing.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is wrong.


Leon David Crestohl: The resolution calls for the definition of refugee to be redefined. Did the government redefine the meaning of the term "refugee" as instructed by its own convention? No, it did not.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The answer is yes.


Leon David Crestohl: Oh, there has been a modification of it, but not a redefinition. I asked the minister on the floor of this house if she would define now what "refugee" meant and her answer was, what the high commissioner for refugees says is a refugee we will acknowledge. It has never been otherwise.

There has been no change as she was instructed. The implications, as hon. members should know, are very wide if there were a redefinition of "refugee".


James Ewen Matthews: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Leon David Crestohl: Certainly.


Jacques Flynn: Before the hon. member puts his question, I would mention that the time of the hon. member has expired. If the committee is willing to give unanimous consent, he may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Ewen Matthews: He is talking about the directions of a political convention to the government. I wonder if he would let the house know if the Liberals have put in their platform all the directions of the recent Liberal convention, and the resolutions that were passed there?


Leon David Crestohl: Is that not typical of hon. gentlemen shying away from their own responsibilities? They say that we did not do it and because the other fellow fails to do it, they should not do it. Surely the hon. gentleman who just asked the question knows as well as I do that the mere fact the other fellow does not do what he should do is no reason for me not to do it. I want to say that I know of nothing in the Liberal platform which will not be implemented as soon as the Liberal party has the power and authority to do so, which I hope will not be very long.
Then there is a third plank in the Conservative platform. This resolution instructs or authorizes the government to increase and extend the existing facilities and personnel for the processing of immigrants in foreign countries.


Mr. Ricard:: From what are you reading?


Leon David Crestohl: From the very same document that I read before.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: What is it?


Leon David Crestohl: I will repeat it. Will the hon. gentleman please note it. It is a page out of the Senate Hansard for April 4, 1960, which is quite recent.


An hon. Member:: From whose speech?


Leon David Crestohl: I think it was Senator Cairine Wilson. She was quoting a resolution right out of the records of the Conservative party. Surely hon. members opposite should know whether or not there is such a resolution.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They do not know; they were never published.


Leon David Crestohl: Of course they were never published. They do not know, and it is obvious from their behaviour they do not know.
I should like to get to the third point. This is a direct instruction or authorization to the government and to the minister. She was authorized and instructed by her own party to extend the existing facilities and personnel for the processing of immigrants in foreign countries. Those of us who are in communication with immigrants constantly hear the government say, we have no facilities in that country. This may be so; it is quite possible. The government says, we cannot deal with this immigrant because we have no facilities for processing. Surely when instructions are given to remedy that situation the minister is in default and is failing to do her duty as minister of immigration when she does not remedy the situation. As a consequence, the whole country suffers.
I should like to point out too that I am one of those who believe in an active immigration policy. As the committee well knows I have been propagating that for the last 11 years. Like the minister herself, I believe that immigrants make jobs and immigrants do not take away jobs from Canadians. On a number of occasions the minister has very eloquently and very forcefully told the country that the immigrants who come to this country are a blessing. They create jobs; they create industry; they encourage work. I believe as the minister does. But what does the record show? The record shows a pitiful reduction in immigration in the last three or four years. In fact, we were told today that 104,000 immigrants came in during the past year. I have not in front of me the figures to indicate how many immigrants left Canada, but I feel sure if you were to strike a balance there would certainly not be a very great net gain for our country.
I have the feeling that if the government were to implement an immigration program- I know the minister is in some difficulty now. She is on the eve of revising the Immigration Act. I believe this is one of the finest things that the minister can do for her department, her officials and the country. I feel I have had some training in the law, but by no stretch of the imagination could I set down clearly what the policy of the immigration department is now. The officials of this department are eminently able, well experienced men, and desirous as they are of being of assistance they come up against confusion in this act which the minister should eliminate once and for all.
I am beginning to be sceptical of whether the minister is serious about revising the act. As I said, the revision was promised last year
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration and it was promised in the speech from the throne. I hope the minister is not waiting until the end of the session to try to rush it through or, alternatively, to say that there is not sufficient time to do so. Tonight she did say that it will depend upon the business of the house as to whether we will be able to have the act revised. Everything will depend upon circumstances. I say to the minister that she will be delinquent in her responsibilities if she does not introduce a revision of this act, have a parliamentary committee appointed to study it and give that committee authority to summon witnesses and hear representations.
Surely the minister is aware of the fact that the country is clamouring for the overhaul of this act. I should like to quote from an article in the Montreal Star of January 4, 1960, which is headed, "Time for an Overhaul".
Without delay, the Immigration Act should be reviewed and the operations of the immigration department surveyed. Either, if not both, is in need of liberalization. Arbitrary behaviour on the part of department personnel would lead one to think sometimes that they are constitutionally hostile to immigration. It is a question whether they should have the power of discretion they sometimes exercise.
I could quote any number of newspaper authorities who are urging the overhauling of the Immigration Act. As I said before, I think there should be an overhauling or revising of this act that would really place the entire policy into simple language, not complicated language, and would set it out clearly so that everybody with intelligence, would be able to understand it. If this were done it would relieve the country and it would certainly relieve the department. I speak for the officials of the department who I know are anxious to do their duty completely and thoroughly but who are sometimes hamstrung by the difficulty of understanding the language of the act.


Jacques Flynn: Shall item 51 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is seriously thought that the most important item in the estimates of the immigration branch would be carried without any reply by the hon. lady to the indictment made by the hon. member for Cartier, not merely of the current practice but of some of the regulations that have been in existence for quite some time and some of the practices that have been in existence for quite some time and which, in some cases, are anachronistic today. I may say that I was minister for about the same length of time or perhaps a little bit longer as the hon. lady has been in office. However, I changed the regulations
1908	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration or caused them to be changed or persuaded my colleagues to have them changed four or five times during that period. I must say that my attitude has been a sort of mixture of feeling flattered that the hon. lady considered my regulations to be so good that she has not been able to change them at all significantly and of feeling that they ought in some respects to have been changed in order to meet changing conditions. That has been my attitude to them.
In extenuation of my own conduct may I say this, and I am not going to defend it more. Nearly all of the instances given by the hon. member for Cartier-and he would perhaps recall this if I went further.-were cases in which liberalizations of the regulations were made and not cases in which restrictions were made. The hon. gentlemen did not point out that the reason that the parents of Canadian citizens can only be applied for when the father is over 65 years of age and the mother is over 60 years of age is that in those cases they are iron curtain countries and as long as the government sees fit-and this is not the fault of the immigration department; this was a decision that was made by the previous government and is presumably being carried on by the present government-and as long as the government feels that in the state of the world as it is at the present time it is necessary to have some security screen of immigrants and as long as it is impossible, as it is, to carry on security screening in countries behind the iron curtain it was felt that the highest considerations of the security of the state made it inadvisable to relax the regulations more than that.
Whether that is suitable to conditions in 1961, as we felt it was the only thing that it was proper to do at the time when I was minister, I should not like to express an offhand opinion. But that is the reason and the sole reason why there is a difference between, say, the parents of a Canadian citizen who happens to be living in a country behind the iron curtain and those who do not. I think perhaps that consideration ought to be put on the record.
I must say that it seems to me that the fundamental criticism that one could make at the present time of the state of our immigration to this country is this, and the hon. member for Cartier put his finger on it when, during his remarks he said he wondered whether there had been very much net gain in population in Canada in the last year or two from immigration. We do not have statistics, and I do not see any practicable way of collecting statistics on the number of people who leave Canada to settle permanently somewhere else unless we turn this country


into a sort of police state, which is not something I would like to see. I would not like to see us starting to ask every Canadian or every resident of Canada who leaves Canada questions such as these; why are you leaving the country? Are you going to stay permanently or are you just going down to Florida? Or things of that sort.
In the first place, I think it would slow up border crossings to such a degree that we would be obliged to have an army of immigration officers instead of the number we now have. I must say that I am glad that we live in a country in which we can have a fairly open border and I am not a bit in favour of changing that situation just for the sake of collecting statistics.
But there is something we can tell from the statistics of immigration into the United States, into the United Kingdom and into one or two other countries that keep records, those being the principal ones. We know that a regrettably large number of residents of Canada have left this country in the last two or three years and that there has been a good deal of comment about that in the press. That has been particularly true in the case of the United Kingdom and Germany in the last couple of years.
But the root cause of that situation, of course, is not any failure of immigration policy or of immigration administration. The root causes of that situation is the unemployment situation with which we are faced. I quite agree with the hon. member for Cartier that if there were some way of keeping people alive indefinitely until they could get jobs it would be desirable to keep up a flow of immigration even when it was difficult to get employment. However, I administered the department and I must say that I do not believe the Canadian people would support such a policy. I do not believe it is a practical policy to encourage people to come to Canada, when those people have no employment and have no real chance of getting employment. From experience that I have had and from studying the experience that the government has had since that time I know that nothing does more to spoil the prospects of future immigration than to have a considerable number of people come to this country with high hopes of getting jobs, spend two or three months here without getting a job and then go back and inevitably blame this country for their experience. As is commonly known, people do not like to blame themselves. I do not think there is any single thing that did so much to discourage British immigration, and will continue to discourage it just as long as the present government is in office, as the brutal cancellation of the Arrow contract and all the consequences it had on the destruction of

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
that complex which had been built up in the Toronto area of industrial research and development which was just by the stroke of a pen in a fit of irritation by the Prime Minister ended on a Friday when these people were brutally thrown out of work.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is absolutely ridiculous.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it was absolutely ridiculous and it was utterly irresponsible.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member's remarks are utterly ridiculous and irresponsible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No better comment could be made upon it than that which has just been made by the Minister of National Defence.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member's remarks are ridiculous and irresponsible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That comment was typical of the hon. gentleman who usually speaks first and thinks afterward, if at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Abuse will get the hon.
gentleman nowhere.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I say that as a practical matter it does seem to me that there cannot be any permanently productive immigration, in the sense of bringing people here who will stay here, who will be contented and who will add to the upbuilding of the country, unless we can maintain the growth of the country, which is not being done at the present time. That is the basic problem, and it is not something that can be blamed on the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, much less on the department. Having said that, there have been one or two other-


An hon. Member:: Tell us something about second-class babies.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman may be a better authority on that subject than I would be. If the child is the father of the man, I would not be surprised if he is.
There is one aspect-


An hon. Member:: Are you talking about the Horners?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one aspect of this subject about which I asked a question early in the session and received no answer. I feel it ought to be pursued because we have been told by a distinguished member of the government, a fairly recent recruit to the government, that when this government came into office there was a profound change in the immigration policy of this country. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State-who is not in the committee at the moment, I regret to say-but I want to read a press dispatch and I intend to read it first from the Toronto Star and then
from La Presse, because I feel we should have both on the record as here were two reputable newspapermen writing in newspapers in both languages, reporting the same meeting and reporting it in virtually identical terms.
I think we are entitled to some serious explanation of this from the Secretary of State and also from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Secretary of State undertook in a by-election campaign in the county of Labelle last October to say this. This appears in the Toronto Star of October 18, 1960, and I read the part that is relevant:
Mr. Dorion maintained stepped-up immigration under the Liberals, particularly the 240,000 admitted in 1956-
The 240,000 admitted in 1956; of course, the Liberals were to blame for that.
-when there were 292,000 unemployed,-
I do not know where the hon. gentleman got that figure. He certainly did not get it from the bureau of statistics:
-was largely responsible for current unemployment.
That is a remarkable statement; but after all that is just a matter of opinion. I do not hold the government collectively responsible for that extraordinary opinion expressed by the Secretary of State. I go on:
He accused the Liberals of trying to "anglicize" French-Canada by bringing over more immigrants from the British Isles than from any other European country.
I ask the minister whether she thinks that is a very helpful way for any minister of the crown to be talking in any part of this country. Then he went on, and this is in quotation marks:
"They tried to eliminate the French-Canadians for the benefit of the English," he said.
Then he said this, and this is the part that the minister should answer for:
Prime Minister Diefenbaker, he added, had promptly closed the door on this immigration-
That is the English immigration:
-and was trying to offset the Liberal "angliciza-tion" by fostering immigration from Italy.
That is a statement made by a minister of the crown, as a member of the government, in support of an unsuccessful candidate for election to this house, regarding what the Prime Minister had done and what the hon. lady is administering. I just repeat it because-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with some amazement to my hon. friend, but it is possible that he was not in the house when the hon. member for Belle-chasse disclaimed this and, as a matter of fact, stated-
1910	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Mr. Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to yield the floor. I was in the house when the hon. member for Bellechasse was very careful not to deny this. He did not deny it at all. If the hon. lady can find any denial of these words, she understands the English language and the French language better than I do, because the hon. gentleman did not deny it. He evaded the question and gave a long quotation from something Mr. Harris had said, which had nothing to do with the case at all; but he did not deny this.
It would be very hard for him to deny it, for two reasons; because it appeared not only in the Toronto Star but in practically the same language in La Presse, and there are at least two or three members of this house who were present on the occasion on which the hon. gentleman uttered these remarks and heard them.


An hon. Member:: You were not there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not there, I never said I was.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have in front of me Hansard for November 18, 1960 and the English translation of the remarks made by the Secretary of State, read as follows:
Mr. Speaker, fortunately, I have here the exact text of my statement, and I find that the reports-


Mr. Bourgel:: He did not have a text.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If I may continue, Mr. Chairman:
-appearing in some newspapers are substantially at variance with what I said.


Mr. Forgie:: "Substantially", that is the word.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister's statement in this house with regard to the inaccuracy of the statement appearing in the press is to be accepted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have no doubt that reports in the newspapers were substantially at variance with the hon. gentleman's notes, but that has nothing to do with the case. Either the hon. gentleman denied using those words, or he did not; and there is no denial there of the words I have read. All the hon. gentleman did was say that some of the press reports were at variance with the notes he had. He did not say they were at variance with the things he said; he said they were at variance with the notes he had. We know he is not the only member of the treasury benches who finds that the things reported in the newspapers are at variance with the notes they have.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; there is no mention of the notes that he had. He said:
-are substantially at variance with what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I accept that.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not take
it up when he was here?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did take it up when he was here. Why is he not here, incidentally, where he ought to be?


An hon. Member:: Why weren't you here yesterday?


Mr. Drysdale:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on the point of order raised by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is speaking to the point of order raised by the house leader, and I cannot entertain more than one point of order at the same time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Precisely, Mr. Chairman, I say that the Secretary of State did not deny the express words I read. All he said was that some of the press reports were at variance with what he had said, as the hon. gentleman has just read. That may well be; but that is not a denial that the words I read were the words he uttered. And, of course, it happens that those words were heard by several members who are in this chamber at this present moment.
If the hon. gentleman wants to come into the house and say that he did not say those words, I shall be obliged, under the rule, to accept his word. But up to now he has not done that.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; I would like to have that clarified. The hon. member seems to be rambling a bit. The point of order I wish to raise is referred to by Beauchesne in paragraph 148 (3) where it is stated:
Reference to debates of the current session is discouraged even if such reference is not irrelevant, as it tends to reopen matters already decided.
Again subparagraph (2) of the same paragraph states:
It is irregular to reflect upon, argue against, or in any manner call in question, in debate, the past acts or proceedings of the house, on the obvious ground that, besides tending to revise discussion upon questions which have already been once decided-
And so on. I suggest this is what the hon. member has been doing. He has done it on two occasions. The first was in connection

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
with the Arrow, and this is the second occasion. The question was discussed in the house and decided, and I suggest we should act in accordance with this rule and try to get the hon. member back to order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has never been recognized that questions asked on the orders of the day are previous debates. The purpose of asking questions on the orders of the day or placing them on the order paper is precisely in order to get material for use in debate. Therefore this is not reopening a matter previously debated. I am not aware that there has been any debate previously this session about the Arrow, though I know there was a debate in another session.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Further to that point of order, since the hon. member has rambled on I would refer him to paragraph 157 (6) which states:
A member quoting a newspaper in debate was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker who said: "The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the house, either directly or indirectly is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others."
I suggest we ask the hon. member to carry on the debate instead of continuing to make the irrelevant observations he has been making.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member has finished reading from Beauchesne perhaps we could get back to the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I can go on to corroborate what I am saying from this dispatch of La Presse of the same date. Perhaps the house would be a little quieter, because it is more difficult for me to do this in a language which is not my habitual language. If I might have the attention of the house, I shall read what La Presse has to say:
(Translation):
He said also that present unemployment is a heritage from the Liberals, because the former government admitted 240,000 immigrants in Canada in 1956, when we had 292,000 unemployed.
Mr. Dorion said Mr. Diefenbaker closed the door on that immigration, adding that the Liberals "wanted, by this immigration, to eliminate the French Canadians to the benefit of the English", while ...
(Text):
This is in quotation marks.
(Translation):
.. while under Mr. Diefenbaker, we admitted more Italians to the detriment of English immigration."
(Text):
I say, is it not quite remarkable that reputable correspondents of two of the leading newspapers in this country, one in
French and one in English, should have given the same account of this situation in almost exactly the same words? Would it not be remarkable if both of them had imagined these words and if those who were there and heard them had also imagined them? If that is what the Secretary of State-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are very brave to attack him when he is not here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Bring him here. I am not in the least concerned about that. Anyway I am not attacking him. The minister said the Prime Minister had changed the immigration policy, that he had stopped British immigration and increased Italian immigration to prevent the anglicization of our country which was being perpetrated by the Liberals and restore the balance. I asked the hon. lady a rhetorical question: is that true? But I am not going to press her for an answer because I know perfectly well it is not true.


An hon. Member:: Then why did you bring it up?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will tell you why I brought it up. I did so because I think that kind of speech is a disgrace to this country. It is a disgrace for a minister of the crown to make this kind of cheap appeal and cheap misrepresentation calculated to promote disunity in other parts of Canada. I think it is an improper way to behave and when a performance of this kind comes to light it seems to me it should be denounced and a record of it should be kept as an example of what many hon. gentlemen opposite and their friends have done in this country ever since 1911, and the moment the Secretary of State appeared on that platform he began doing it all over again. I say we should stop this kind of talk about whether one kind of immigrant is better than another. The plain fact of the matter is that we know from our experience, having had immigrants from nearly every country in the world, that those immigrants from nearly every country in the world and their descendants have become good Canadians; just as good Canadians as the descendants of the original inhabitants of this country or the descendants of the French or the English. If we are going to have a united country the sooner we have a stop to that kind of thing the better. That is the only reason and the only excuse I have for bringing this up.
If the hon. member for Bellechasse, the Secretary of State, had, when I asked my question first, got up and said without equivocation that he had never made that statement I would have had to accept his answer and I would not have mentioned the subject again. But he did not say that. He used
1912	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration words which were calculated to give that impression, but he did not say that because the hon. gentleman knew it would not have been correct if he had. That is why I raised this matter. I have no apology whatever to make for bringing up this question and I hope this will put a stop to that kind of speech by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It had not been my intention to reply in any detail to the observations made by the hon. member for Cartier but since I have been challenged to do so by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate perhaps I should say a few words.
The hon. member quoted from my speech in Guelph which was made available to him last week. I fail to understand why he cannot read what was written in that speech. He purported to tell this house that by saying Canada wanted skilled immigrants I had inferred that none but skilled workers would be admitted. As he very well knows, I denied that first press report and if he had read my speech he would have been able to ascertain for himself what the facts are. I did not say in my speech that relatives would not be admitted, and he should know that, too, if he had read the speech. I fail to understand the hon. member's motives in imputing to me statements other than those I did make.
In so far as his other remarks are concerned, when he accuses me of being inhuman and vacillating and, I think he said, playing the immigration policy by ear, I should like to say to him, that if by that he means that my ear is open to the pleas which are made to me he is right. I have pursued and tried to pursue a flexible policy in so far as immigration is concerned. I do not like the act; I have said so on many occasions, but I have also said that I am not going to bring into this house some half-baked instrument to take its place.
I might say that some of the organizations to which the hon. member belongs are amongst those who plead most frequently for special consideration and, as hon. members know, special consideration can only be given by order in council. I make no apology whatsoever for having used the instrument of order in council to accede to some of the heartbreaking pleas of some of my hon. friends own friends.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate referred to the fact that on a number of occasions he had altered the regulations-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Or asked to have them altered.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -or made some variation in their application, I take it. That has been done by this government also on a number of

occasions. We are not operating under exactly the same terms as those which he left to us when he left this office. I could name a number of regulations which have been altered somewhat or modified. To call one to mind, I am thinking of the elimination of the bond which had formerly been required by fiancees, usually Chinese fiancees.
In answer to my hon. friend from Cartier who said that there had been no new definition of refugees-he called it a modification -well, whether it was a modification or not may I say we had a warm letter of thanks from the Canadian Jewish congress expressing their deep appreciation of the steps which were taken to make it permissible for those persons who might be classified as economic refugees, not normally recognized by the high commissioner for refugees, to enter this country.
As I said a moment ago, I make no apologies for the changes which have been made. I make no apologies for the fact that I have tried to pursue a flexible policy. I do apologize for not having brought in a new act before now, but I can assure hon. members that there were circumstances completely beyond my control which have prevented my bringing it in before now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Because I think there would be a very general interest in this question I wonder whether the hon. lady can tell us just precisely where the investigation into the Chinese question is at the present time?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot give a precise answer to that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A progress report.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The investigation is proceeding; a number of Chinese have come forward and have given information by means of which we are in the process of regularizing their status. A few have already been regularized. Some of the others are awaiting further information, but we expect that we will be able to deal with their cases.
In so far as the prosecutions are concerned, of course, those come under my colleague the Minister of Justice. I might say, though, that I am a little disappointed that more of the Chinese have not taken advantage of the offer which has been made to them by means of which they might have come forward and given us the true circumstances of their entry and their true names, and thus have been in a position to pass on to their children their proper identity. I think it is a mistake for them not to do so, and I am sure that in the years to come those who do not will bitterly regret it. I do hope that even yet a great many of them will

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
come forward and establish themselves as bona fide immigrants and citizens of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I noticed from the statistics that the hon. lady gave us, and I also noticed this in the newspapers, that immigration from China was about half of what it was in 1959. Is the hon. lady now satisfied that all the people who are now coming are bona fide immigrants in the sense that they are the persons whom they represent themselves to be, and that the situation which was being investigated is now being completely cleared up so far as all the current cases in Hong Kong are concerned?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can undertake to make any such statement. We hope that we have investigated and traced all of the current entrants to the places where we know they pretend to be. I think the very fact that immigration from China has been cut in half-and which I might say is the direct result of fewer applications, not of action on the part of this department-will indicate that those who are coming forward now are the ones that are sure of their own bona fides. I do not think that under the present circumstances someone would come forward who knew that he was deliberately misrepresenting himself. In fact, he would be a very brash individual indeed to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady took some credit to herself with regard to changing the regulations with respect to fiancees. I am not sure that I entirely approve of the change which was made but that is a matter of opinion. She knows the reason why the original provision was made. Those fiancees from China were all admitted when I was minister as a matter of grace and not under the regulations at all. But it did happen occasionally that the passion that had prompted the application did not survive the encounter, and sometimes there was no marriage. It seemed to me that in those circumstances it was only fair that they should have a return ticket so that they could get back, because I do not think it is beyond the hon. lady's imagination-and perhaps she does not even need to imagine it-that sometimes some people who alleged they were applying for fiancees were applying for women for some other purpose. Is the hon. lady quite satisfied that the people she is admitting now as fiancees really are all bona fide cases, and can she give any figure as to whether the number has increased or decreased in the last year?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am very happy to inform my hon. friend that we have not had one Chinese fiancee come forward who has
not fulfilled the marriage contract subsequently and since the bond was removed. I wish I could say the same for the fiancees who come from all other countries. That was one of the grievances when we removed the bond. We felt it was an unjust condition directed against the Chinese when possibly the Chinese more than any others were observing the conditions of their entry. Consequently I am very glad to say there have been no culprits since the bond was removed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think there were many of the return tickets used even before, if the hon. lady will recall the figures.
In view of the discussion we have had so far, I think it might be useful if either now or later the hon. lady would give us a record of the respects, not in which the practice has been changed, but in which the actual regulations have been changed since the present government came into office, and what the nature of the changes was and what the effect of them has been. If it could be done right away it would be all the better.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can give my hon. friend some. The regulations were amended to enable Canadian residents of Asian origin to sponsor admission of their spouses, children and parents. Previously such sponsors had to wait until they acquired Canadian citizenship. This change enabled the reunion of families who would otherwise have been separated for five years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In some cases.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Well, having regard to the fact that I was accused earlier of separating families I think maybe I might stress the point that this was done specifically to reunite families.
Then there was the order in council which amended the regulations to provide for the landing under minister's permit of persons who marry Canadian citizens or residents. This was intended to provide a little more control over the admission of fiancees by providing, if necessary, for the removal from Canada without formality of those who did not marry. I am sure my hon. friend will remember cases when he was minister where one person would bring forward successive fiancees, none of whom ever actually entered into marriage with him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly not with me.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I meant with the applicant. I am sorry. I have mentioned already the elimination of the bonding requirement and I have already mentioned the amended definition of refugees. These are the ones that come immediately to mind. There are other minor changes that I could secure for my hon. friend but these are the ones that are the most prominent.
1914	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the hon. lady say how many refugees were admitted to Canada during refugee year apart from those who were brought in under the government's scheme, so to speak, the tubercular ones?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In round figures about 4,500, including some 700 or more who came in under the tubercular refugee scheme.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How many is it contemplated are coming under the extension of the direct government sponsorship?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: At the present time we have made arrangements for 114 in hospitals. With their families I cannot say exactly what the number will be but it will probably be about 450.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can it be said that, practically speaking, all the tubercular people in the refugee camps in Europe who would be willing to migrate at all have now been taken care of?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We have altogether only 96 left that we know of who can be brought forward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think this has been one of the most humane and commendable things that has been done since the Hungarian situation and, as the minister knows, I have never failed to commend what the government has done in this matter. I know there were people who felt that there was quite a danger to the public health. Some quite eminent doctors who are friends of mine have said to me that there are various kinds of tuberculosis and we might start a new strain in this country. However, there does not seem to be any evidence that any harm has been done or that there has been any infection of anyone already here as the result of this movement, and it undoubtedly has changed the very lives of a lot of people in a way of which I think every Canadian who has contributed to it ought to be rather proud of having had some part. I must say I am very happy indeed to commend the government for having done this.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, much as I should like to take all the commendation myself I must in all fairness pay tribute to the provincial governments who in their turn participated in this scheme by making hospital beds available and by entering into arrangements with the federal authorities for the care of these people. I think we can truly say that this has been a Canadian scheme which touched all classes and kinds of people because in addition to the part played in the scheme by the provincial governments a number of these people were brought forward by individuals, by groups of individuals and by


organizations such as churches and service clubs. Altogether I think it has been a mosi heart-warming effort.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make a few observations but I see the hon. member for Kootenay West rising.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was simply going to ask a question. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member's line of thought.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was really going on to make some observations about a different subject. I gather from what the minister has said about the revision of the Immigration Act that it is very far indeed from being in a final form for submission to the house. Therefore it may be that the minister would be interested in having my views as to some changes and improvements that I think should be made in the act. I would be very glad to mention a few of them.
The reason I am doing so right now is that the question of tuberculosis is one of them. I think that certain of the prohibitions now in the act should be removed. I could do a Pontius Pilate act over this because when the act was before parliament I was not a member of the house although the hon. lady was, so I had no direct responsibility whatsoever for what is in the act. When that prohibition was put in the act there were justifiable fears about contagion that are no longer justified at all. I know that I came pretty close to breaking the law on a good many occasions when I was the minister by actually admitting people to this country who, strictly speaking, were not admissible because they still had a spot on a lung that some doctor certified might still be active. I did not do it very often and, of course, I never landed them as immigrants.
I do not need to tell the minister that painful situations of this sort arise all the time because the law itself in my opinion is quite unnecessarily harsh. I do think that not only that particular prohibition but all the other prohibitions including the one about insanity should be examined. I feel very keenly about the one regarding insanity. As every hon. member knows, there are many kinds of mental disorder, particularly those kinds which young people have from which they recover and which make them no more prone to mental disease in the future than someone who has never had any mental disease. I think that the prohibition in that field is utterly out of accord with what would now be the public view of what would be appropriate. I would hope that there would be some relaxation in that field as well.
I also hope that the minister, though she certainly is under no obligation to do so, will

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
carry out the pledge that I made to the welfare association that if I ever introduced amendments to the act I would take out the provision for the deportation of persons who become public charges. I think that is a relic of the old days when the municipalities had to bear the whole burden in the case of any person who went on relief and they were unwilling to do so. But now that we have unemployment assistance, half of which is contributed by the federal treasury, for all kinds of Canadians and which applies not merely to unemployed persons but to everyone who is on relief for any reason, I certainly see no earthly reason why that provision should be there.
I am now going to embark on a subject which is much more difficult and about which I have done a lot of reflecting since I ceased being the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have had more time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the Minister of Veterans Affairs has pointed out, I have had a little more time, and I have had to find other means of occupying my time that were more lucrative than just thinking.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You had better edit that statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Than just thinking? Perhaps with the permission of the hon. lady and of the house I might look at it and edit it to the extent that I think is necessary.
To come back to my point, one of the most difficult things was this whole problem of adjudication of deportation cases. When I was the minister I had the governor in council set up an appeal board in respect of the deportation of landed immigrants who I felt had rights. From the time I set up that board every landed immigrant was asked to opt- I do not know whether the minister follows this course-whether he wanted his case settled finally by the board or by the minister. Of course, under the law, the minister has to settle it. There is no escape because parliament has said so. If the person said, I want it settled by the board, then I did not alter the board's decision. If the person said, I want it settled by the minister, then I asked for the board's advice and while I generally followed it I felt I was under an obligation to exercise a certain measure of judgment myself. I think this course was quite legal, and I was advised it was quite legal.
However I would much rather have had a board that had the final jurisdiction and, if necessary, an appeal to the courts. I do not believe such a right of appeal to the courts would have been exercised very often. I have the view that once we accept a person as a
90205-6-121
landed immigrant he has certain rights. It is true he has not the same rights a Canadian citizen has but he has broken his ties with another country and we have said, you look like a likely citizen. We have accepted him and we have, therefore, incurred some kind of obligation.
I think it would be very much better to have these cases adjudicated by a tribunal. It would make the life of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a good deal more tolerable if she had no power to deal with these cases at all, just as she has no power to deal with citizenship cases. I do not believe the minister differs with me in the view that the amount of discretion that can be exercised should be reduced to the minimum.
The only reason there is any discretion under the act-at least in my experience during the whole time I administered it-is so that it can be exercised for the benefit of the applicant. I have never known discretion to be exercised the other way. In fact, I do not believe it could be exercised the other way. Either a person is legally admissible or he is a borderline case, and if you admit him you are exercising the discretion in his favour. The question is, do you want to retain any discretion of that sort. I think that unless we are going to have a quota system or a complete open door policy there has to be a measure of discretion exercised somewhere. I do not believe the Canadian people would ever accept the open door policy, and I am very much against a general quota system. I say this not as a final opinion, but I just offer this gratuitous advice to the minister and to her officials for consideration before the act is revised.
I have come to the conclusion that on balance there ought to be a provision in the act for the establishment of an appeal board to consider any appeals in sponsorship cases. This is a very difficult task for a minister. A minister is under all kinds of pressure from all kinds of people, some of them benevolent and some of them quite mercenary. It does seem to me that if we could lay down rules for sponsorship and then create an independent tribunal to consider any cases that were appealed by the legal sponsor in Canada, it would make this portfolio supportable. I must say I have a good deal of sympathy for whoever has this task at the present time because there are too many decisions that nobody but the minister has the right under the law to make for one human being to be expected to make them, to be able to make them conscientiously and live a normal life. I speak rather feelingly about this. I tried to administer the act exceedingly conscientiously, perhaps too conscientiously. At any rate I am
1916	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration honestly trying to make some suggestions which I think might make the law more tolerable from every point of view.
I must confess that in the case of applicants for admission to Canada who have no sponsors, who have no previous connection with Canada, I do not believe their cases are capable of being adjudicated by any kind of tribunal or board any better than they can be handled by the officials of the department. When it comes to a question of selecting from the outside world those people we want or do not want to be residents of Canada, who have no connection or relationship of any sort with this country, I do not think we should do anything which would confer a right upon other people. I do not believe that would work. I believe the moment you did it you would have the administrative machinery and the adjudicative machinery clogged with so many cases, most of them I am afraid I would have to say unworthy cases, the whole process would break down.
We have had some experience with those who have got into the courts. The hon. lady will remember a certain person by the name of George Christian Hanna who was of great help to her party in Vancouver in the general election of 1957. I think before she had ceased to hear about him she was as sick of his name as I was. It is true there are a number of undesirable people, and there is no earthly reason why we should have them in Canada. The notion that anyone who is not very welcome in his own country but who wants to come here should be able to come here is one that I do not believe the Canadian people would accept for one moment. I think a clear-cut distinction could be made. I say this after a lot of reflection about the difference between immigrants of that type and sponsored immigrants. This would, I believe, involve extending to the English and the French, who do not -have it now, the right to sponsorship which is given to other people. These people did not have it in my time because they were relatively freely admissible anyway. I think that would have to be modified.
There is one other matter which I suppose, in a sense, more properly comes under citizenship than under immigration, but is closely related to it. In view of the rather higher degree of literacy, the rather higher educational qualifications generally, and the greater need there is going to be in the future if we are to provide for good immigration and to make things agreeable to immigrants in Canada, I have been wondering if we should not give consideration to reducing the five-year waiting period for Canadian citizenship. At the present time I think it is really more attractive for most people


to stay in Europe than it is to come to Canada. I think we might give consideration to the question of whether five years is too long a period to wait for citizenship. I have not any fixed views on this subject but I think it is one that perhaps merits some consideration.
There is one other question and I come back to it because I omitted it earlier. There were also these other deportations. I suggest to the minister that she change the nomenclature in the act so that a clear distinction is drawn, by using a different word, between what you do with landed immigrants and what you do with people who are here as visitors. Much of the misunderstanding that exists at the present time about the administration of the act is due to the confusion in people's minds between the deportation of immigrants and the deportation of visitors.
I must say that on balance, having regard to all the circumstances, I think that some advisory body should have the capacity to review deportation orders of visitors as well. My own opinion is this; and may I say that I have an extremely high regard for the officers of the department. I do not think they have ever deserved much of the abuse that has been heaped upon them with regard to being inhuman bureaucrats and so on. That has not been my experience and it has not been the experience of most of my friends. But for all that, there is no doubt that when a decision is made by a single individual in Sydney and another one is made in Victoria, there is the possibility of a good deal of difference in the interpretation of the law. I think it would be a good thing if there were in existence some formal advisory body that would consider cases-and they would be relatively few

in which there was a desire for an appeal to the minister and give an opinion which could be made public, if necessary. Once this appeal is taken I think the information should be publishable. If the person does not want it published, he should not appeal. If he feels he has grounds for appeal, he should take the risks of publication. I think the minister understands thoroughly what I mean. Many of these visitors are deported for reasons to which they would not wish to have much publicity given.
I suggest that this procedure would also serve a useful purpose. But I say to the minister that if she can think of some other word it might be helpful. I do not care which one she calls deportation and which one she does not. On the whole I would use the word "deportation" for immigrants and 1 would get another word that had a different connotation for those people who are just visitors in the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
country and who have no right whatever to stay here if they are objectionable in any way.
These remarks were not very well organized. They are rather a wide-ranging expression of opinions but I hope they may be a little bit helpful in the drafting of legislation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Just before my hon. friend asks his question I should like to thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate and tell him that practically all of the suggestions he has made have been under consideration. I cannot find too much wrong with what he has said. If he has any other ideas on the subject I hope he will not hesitate to send them along to the department. Out of the wealth of his own experience in this branch I know that he must have some definite ideas, as he has just demonstrated.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just wish to make a few observations on this item. First of all let me say I think all of us appreciate the extremely difficult task confronting the officials of the immigration branch because of the pressure from various groups to get people admitted and often pressure by members of parliament in contradiction sometimes to things they say in the House of Commons. I want to say publicly that in travelling through the country and in talking to a good number of persons, including some members of this House of Commons, I find that there is a general appreciation of the good work being undertaken by the present deputy minister and of his generally fair, sympathetic and humane approach.
In listening to the remarks of the hon. member from Bonavista-Twillingate who speaks with considerable experience I must say this, although it rather pains me at times to be compelled to agree with him. I must say that he put up a reasoned case with respect to various groups of immigrants, and particularly with respect to the admissibility of sponsored immigrants who are coming to relatives who will provide for them so that they are not going to be a public charge. I think his suggestions in that respect were quite sound.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, while I realize all the difficulties, it appears that we still have not a planned immigration policy in which we bring forward people on the whole when they can be absorbed into the economy without displacing Canadian workers or, shall I say, competing with Canadians for short housing and things of that sort. In the opinion of the members of this group who have always advocated a planned immigration policy, immigrants' applications should be processed in the country of origin and then they should be brought 90205-6-121i
forward as they can be fitted into the stream of employment satisfactorily in this country.
I want to say a word or two about landed immigrants. This matter has been a sore point with some members of this group and other members in this House of Commons. I refer to the abuse of this term "landed immigrants". The minister has had brought to her attention on a number of occasions where people come in from the United States, as they have done in British Columbia in recent years, as landed immigrants. I have had them tell me after they have arrived here that they have used the term "landed immigrants" only to come in and work for three months. They come in as landed immigrants not intending to stay as immigrants and take employment on that basis away from Canadian workers; they come in and work on pipe lines and things of that sort. I think there is considerable abuse of the opportunity to come into Canada as a landed immigrant. I think there should be some consideration of that term and I think that something should be done to make certain, as far as possible, that a person who comes to Canada as a landed immigrant is a genuine settler and intends to try to establish himself or herself in this country and intends to make a living here. We have had numerous cases of that kind in the interior of British Columbia, particularly in the building of pipe lines.
Then we have another abuse of the immigration facilities and in one case I found the officers of an international union cooperating with men in the United States, to the disadvantage of the Canadian workers, in making application for men to come into this country on the assumption that there was no Canadian capable of doing the job. They come in as technicians of a certain type and inside of a week they were driving a truck. I think that is a question that requires careful looking into and I think something should be done with respect to regulations in order to strengthen our officers at the ports of entry.
Then there is the question of securing employment for immigrants and I have raised this question previously. I think it is entirely wrong that, shall I say, the seeking of employment for Canadians and for immigrants should be in the hands of two departments. Here we have the employment service of Canada carrying on its functions normally with its officials largely tied to offices, with inability to travel. We have these officers dealing with registrations and applications of workers for employment in the region which the office serves, and we have the immigration officer doing his duty, able to travel all around the country. He
19X8	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration receives a wire to say there are 20 immigrants coming tomorrow, and one immigration officer told me this was a proper headache.
I know several instances where he has just happened to meet an employer who wanted a man in a small community in my constituency and who had not time to register at the national employment office at Nelson or Trail. The immigration officer said, "I have certain men coming at a certain time, I can provide you with men", and one or two, or a number of immigrants obtain employment within a day or two of arrival in Canada.
At the same time there are in that community men who have had applications in the employment office for six months, married men with children, veterans who fought for this country in the second world war particularly. I know of cases where there has been hard feeling among the Canadian citizens affected in this way.
It is also unfair to the immigrant, who is sometimes subjected to a kind of disfavour, to put it very politely indeed, in a small community because he walks into that village -I do not blame him-and takes a job which other men are seeking, because they have been unemployed for some period of time.
I do think consideration should be given to bringing this question of employment under the unemployment service of Canada so that they can place applicants, as they register for jobs, in positions which are vacant. If someones arrives rather late, there is provision made for these people to be cared for and looked after in other ways for a certain time. I think that would be better than having this unfortunate state of affairs that causes a considerable amount of annoyance, to say the least, at certain times.
I want to ask the minister, at the request of a number of my constituents, what happens to an immigrant who has not become a Canadian citizen and who has committed a criminal offence or offences and has been sentenced to penitentiary for two years or more. What happens in the case of an immigrant who is sentenced to a year in jail, or six months in jail? In a case brought to my attention in the city of Revelstoke an immigrant spent six months in jail on three occasions, and the chap came back and went to work, and so on. What is the policy of the department in respect to immigrants who commit crimes, who are not Canadian citizens and who obviously, from their records, are not suitable citizens? What does the department do upon their release from penitentiary?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, the usual practice is this. If a person who has not yet acquired domicile-which means residence, after being landed, for five years- commits an offence and is charged and sentenced, he then becomes liable to deportation. There is the odd case where, if he is a first offender, he might be given a chance to see whether he can make good. But his period of residence toward the establishment of domicile stops when he gets into trouble with the law, in most cases.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Do you mean by that he has to start his five years over again?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In the event that he has more than one conviction, of course in the average case he would be immediately deported. I might say, though-as my hon. friend probably knows-it is difficult to deport a person who comes from an iron curtain country, because the matter of deportation requires the consent of the country to which he will be deported. So I cannot give my hon. friend an over-all answer; but the general rule is that a person who has not yet acquired domicile and who has committed an offence for which he is convicted and serves a sentence would be deportable.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister mind commenting on my suggestion that this search for employment for both Canadian citizens and immigrants be brought under the Department of Labour.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, this is not at all a new suggestion. Not only my hon. friend but many other persons from time to time have made this suggestion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Even Conservatives, when they were in opposition.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the immigrant concerned comes from the United States or from some other English speaking country to an English community, or a French speaking country to a French community, he could orobably report to the local national employment service and take his chances with others who are making application. However, it must be borne in mind that the immigration department is responsible for these people, or has made itself responsible for them for a year after their arrival. Many of them require an interpreter at first. They certainly require to be told the conditions under which they would seek employment in this country. In other words, they need to be guided for a considerable length of time after they arrive in Canada.
These are just a few of the reasons why we consider it necessary to do what we can to assist them. Moreover, if they are not

employed they become more or less a charge on the immigration department. Consequently we do what we can to assist them to find housing, to find employment and to generally guide them in their first days in this country.
It is not our intention at any time to take work away from Canadians. In fact we have bent over backwards in that regard. The remarks which I made indicating the manner in which we are proceeding to try to circumvent such circumstances are the very remarks for which I was roundly criticized in this house today and in some of the newspapers of the country. But that is the very reason why we believe we should only bring into the country such workmen as have skills which are required at the present time and for which there are vacancies.
I might draw to the attention of my hon. friend that it is quite possible-I have said this on other occasions-that in a certain line of work there may be vacancies in the city of Toronto and surplus workers in Vancouver. The surplus workers in Vancouver, particularly if they are family people, are very loath to pull up stakes and go following the call of a job in the city of Toronto; and vice versa. We have these situations all the time.
So regardless of the fact that there may be unemployment in the country, there are always vacancies which are crying to be filled in some parts of the country. We do our best not to cause any difficulties in this regard, and we certainly try not to take jobs away from Canadians.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the minister one more question. I have been very patient indeed today, because I have been absent a great deal of the time. Has the minister given consideration to doing something to strengthen this section that permits immigrants to come in as landed immigrants when it is obvious that they are coming in under false pretences? It happens repeatedly. I want to explain this to the minister. I thought she was a bit snippy with me the other day when I asked a question, but I have forgiven her that already. I must say that this was brought to my attention and I suggested that the R.C.M.P. should check on this matter.
This is what I did. There were half a dozen men who came across from the United States at either Paterson or Newgate in my constituency, the ports along the Kootenay border. These men had come in as landed immigrants. I got in touch with the R.C.M.P. and told them these men claimed to be landed immigrants. They had come in as settlers and were working on the pipe line. I told the R.C.M.P. that it had been brought to my
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration attention by other employees that they were boasting of the fact that they were only going to work while the pipe line was being constructed and then they were going back to the United States.
I had the R.C.M.P. check their licences. They were staying in British Columbia and using their United States licences because they were claiming to be only visitors. My suggestion was that the R.C.M.P. should check some of these cases. If they found a man had come in and was still using his United States licence under the pretext that he was a visitor on the one hand, in order to avoid taking out a British Columbia licence, claiming exemption as a visitor for six months and was claiming to be a landed immigrant on the other hand, there would be clear proof that there had been an entry under false pretences. I made that suggestion then, and now I make it again seriously. I think a few checks might do something to stop this practice which is very annoying for Canadian workers looking for employment on the same jobs.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I find it a little difficult to understand the situation, because these people who come in as landed immigrants must, after all, undergo a certain examination, a health examination, and so on. I do not see any number of them doing that for the sake of being here for three months. On the other hand, if they come in as landed immigrants I think their automobiles would be listed as part of their household goods. I do not know what the regulations may be in British Columbia but in other provinces they are not allowed to use their cars after a stated period of time before securing a licence so I think it would be fairly easy to check. If a person comes in as an immigrant and brings his car as household goods, surely the provincial licensing authorities would be hot on his trail to make sure he lives up to his obligations. We have from time to time checked the reports which have come to us with respect to visitors working, particularly on pipe lines and on this one project at Cranbrook spread-is that the one the hon. gentleman was referring to?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is right. That is the most recent one.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Just recently we checked that and there were only eight men working on it who were in the category of landed immigrants. All the others were Canadians.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister mentioned
Cranbrook spread and I notice that the leader of the official opposition made a speech in Cranbrook quite recently, touring around having certain designs in view, and

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration one of the things brought to his attention at that meeting was this very matter, and I understand there were some vehement complaints made. There may have been only eight landed immigrants working at the time the minister made her check, but there were many more than that. In my district the number went up to hundreds when the pipe line was being built from Penticton to the southern portion of British Columbia. Incidentally the contractor refused to hire men through the national employment service. The manager told me the United States contractor told him he was not going to be bothered by this potty national employment service, but said: I am going to bring in the men I need, and the rest will line up outside the office door so I can pick the ones I want. One group was put to work for a week or two and then that group was fired and a new group was taken on, and so on. It was most unsatisfactory.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We have a complete report on this, and if the hon. gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further we shall be glad to give it to him.
On the general question, I would remind the hon. member that it is one thing to ascertain what a person does and quite another to ascertain his intentions. All these people come forward as landed immigrants and fulfil the requirements of the act and bring their household goods. I do not know how we could possibly say to some of them: you are obviously not landed immigrants and obviously you do not want to stay in Canada. If it were obvious, we would not let them in.


Mr. Rapp:: I wish to ask a short question. Are any immigrants landing in this country from behind the iron curtain, and are there many inquiries from people living behind the iron curtain about immigration to this country?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Only from those who have relatives in Canada. We get inquiries from persons who have relatives behind the iron curtain in various countries who would like to bring their relatives to Canada. We get such inquiries from time to time. I would not say the volume is great, but we get quite a few.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member also asked whether there had been any immigrants landed from any countries behind the iron curtain.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh yes, there have been.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a subject I should like to pursue a little further. There have been periods, as the hon. lady well knows,

when in certain of these iron curtain countries there may be a temporary relaxation and it would be somewhat easier for Canadian citizens who had left relatives there to get, say, their parents out of those countries. At the time I ceased to be minister that was certainly true of Poland. That was just after the troubles of 1956. A great many people managed to get out at that time. There have been one or two periods when it has been possible for a few people to get out of Russia but not very many. I understand there have been one or two cases where parents have even been allowed out of Hungary, but I am not sure if that is correct. I wonder if the hon. lady has any statistical information and if she could indicate what the prospects are and also what procedure has to be followed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid I cannot describe the procedure in sufficient detail at this time to be useful, but in answer to an earlier question, I now have the figures. Last year 4,426 persons came in from a number of iron curtain countries.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a factual question? Does that include Yugoslavia?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, there are two views about whether Yugoslavia is an iron curtain country and that is why I asked that question. Does that number also include people from China?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No. There were 881 from Yugoslavia. Poland has from time to time permitted persons to leave; not all who wished to, but most of them come forward. When there are indications that a certain country is relaxing its procedures with regard to permitting its nationals to leave we try to hurry visas for those persons who have waited, probably for a long time, so that they may rejoin their people in this country. It is a spasmodic thing. Sometimes a country will permit persons to leave, and then, all of a sudden, close the gates and allow none out. These are situations which again require some flexibility in the policy of the government.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Will the house be dealing with these estimates tomorrow and, if so, what will the business be for next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will commence with second reading of the bill based on the resolution dealing with the Pension Act and in view of the lengthy discussion we had on the resolution stage it might be that second

reading of that bill will pass the house fairly quickly; also in view of the fact that it is our intention to move that following second reading the bill be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs where the clauses may be studied in detail. That will be followed by the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
On Thursday, I generally attempt to forecast the following week's business, which is subject to change, but next week it will be this: on Monday we will have a private members' day; Tuesday will be government business with these items called, No. 9 on today's order paper, a resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with a proposed railway to Mattagami lake in the province of Quebec. The second item on Tuesday would be No. 3 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill No. S-3, to repeal certain laws relating to the signal station at Halifax. This is also under the Minister of Transport. The third item on Tuesday would be item No. 5 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-61, to amend the Indian Act. I have no knowledge of whether the whole day would be spent on these three items or not. If there were any spare time on Tuesday we would then take up item No. 7 on today's order paper, the motion to set up a select committee on research.
For Wednesday, the first item to be called would be item No. 11 on today's order paper,
Business of the House
referring the report of the Canada council to the public accounts committee. The second item on Wednesday would be item No. 12 on today's order paper, referring the public accounts and so forth to the standing committee on public accounts. That would be followed by the continuation of the debate on the budget resolutions.
On Thursday, we would continue the budget resolutions if they are not concluded on Wednesday.
On Friday we would take up estimates. If we have not finished citizenship and immigration we would start with those again on Friday and then carry on with agriculture.


Mr. Winch:: If it is at all possible, since there is not likely to be any debate on these matters, would the minister have the two motions of reference to the public accounts brought up on Tuesday instead of Wednesday because the committee is desirous of meeting at 9.30 on Wednesday morning.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate that fact but unfortunately the Minister of Finance will not be here on Tuesday and I think he should be here when these items are brought forward.


[Stage Direction]
At five minutes past ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

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

Mr. Racine: How many winter works projects, in each province, have been accepted by the federal government (a) during 1959-60; (b) since the beginning of the 1960-61 period to date?
Supplementary answer by: Hon. W. G. Dins-dale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
Winter works projects accepted by the Department of Northern Affairs and National
Resources on behalf of the federal government under the camp grounds and picnic areas program:
	1959-60	1960-61 (To Jan. 31/61)
British Columbia .	. 27	22Alberta 	. 275	45Saskatchewan ...	. 47	50Manitoba 	. 79	33Ontario 	. 187	260Quebec 	. -	5New Brunswick .	. 25	11Nova Scotia 	. 8	1Totals	
648	427
Friday, February 10, 1961



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on standing orders-Miss Aitken.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. C. Fairfield (Portage-Neepawa)
presented the first report of the special committee on broadcasting, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
(Translation):