1961-02-10

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have to announce the resignation of the hon. member for Victoria, (Ont.) (Mr. Hodgson) as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport. The resignation was received and I accepted it with regret. The hon. member has performed his duties in a manner befitting the responsibilities of his office. I can only say that it was with regret that the resignation was accepted, consequent upon the prospective acceptance by him of a position which in no way interferes with his right to sit as a member of parliament but might be inconsistent with the responsibilities of a parliamentary secretary.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all members will have heard this announcement with great regret. The hon. member has been in the house a long time, and he has never hesitated to speak his mind frankly when he felt like doing so. However, he has always been able to do so without forfeiting the respect of his friends in the house.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: We
all listened with interest to this announcement by the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton has transferred his affection from mechanical to four-legged horses. We wish him every success in the new work he has undertaken.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have resigned as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport. One reason for doing so is that my health is not sufficiently good to cope with the amount of work the minister lays on your back. Nevertheless, I have got along well with the members of the department with whom I have worked. I never worked with anybody I enjoyed more than the Minister of Transport. Anything I have done for any of the members of the House of Commons has been a pleasure. I have other duties that will 90205-6-122
call me from this duty, and that will take some of my time. I believe a man can only do so much work; therefore I thought I might better serve my people in the agricultural industry of Canada in this other appointment.
I appreciate what was said by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and also the leader of the C.C.F. party. I note that the hon. member for Kootenay West is shaking his head, but after all he has more to say than all the rest of the C.C.F. party, and sometimes three or four times as much. If he has not that portfolio, probably he should have it. I should like to advise him that I am not the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton; I am the hon. member for the electoral district of Victoria, Ontario, which includes Victoria, Haliburton and north Ontario counties, in area the largest riding in southern Ontario.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-68, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, section 12 of the Juvenile Delinquents Act sets out the requirement that trials of children shall take place without publicity and separately and apart from the trials of adults. The act prohibits newspapers and all other publications published anywhere in Canada from publishing the names or disclosing the identity of anyone being prosecuted under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. The act therefore provides for secrecy in regard to the actual trial or hearing, but it does not provide this same secrecy in regard to the files and records respecting the trial.
The purpose of this bill is to extend the secrecy provisions of the act to these files and records, and to provide further that these records and files shall be destroyed after a period of five years from the date of the hearing or trial, if no new trial respecting such child or juvenile has taken place during the said period of five years.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
1924	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



AIR DEFENCE AND PRODUCTION SHARING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can confirm the fact that the Secretary of Defence of the United States government has received a formal proposal from the Canadian government concerning the air defence of the North American continent and production sharing. If so, can he give the house any indication of the nature of this proposal?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to what proposal the Leader of the Opposition is referring.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am referring to a proposal which has been announced in Washington in a press release from the defence department dated February 6, which reads:
The Secretary of Defence received a formal proposal from the Canadian government concerning the air defence of the North American continent and production sharing.
It is that proposal in this official announcement of the department of defence of the United States that I have asked the minister whether he can confirm; and if so, can he give any indication of the nature of the proposal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions going on with the United States in connection with defence sharing, and various proposals have been put forward as far as Canada is concerned. I am not in a position to give any details to the house at the present time in this connection.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Defence Production arising out of this matter. Do these proposals referred to in the press release just quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, and also commented on by the Minister of National Defence, contain consideration of the exchange of the CL-44 transport plane for the Voodoo interceptor?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, we are always interested in getting production sharing to encourage all our industries in Canada.



BOMARC BASES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister 

comment on a report in the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday by Charles Lynch that the minister's initiative at the United Nations has been eroded by the establishment of Bomarc bases in Canada?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secreiary of Slate for Exiernal Affairs):: That is a quite improper question for orders of the day.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the compulsory retirement of 13 judges on March 1, because of age, can the Prime Minister say whether these positions will be filled on that date?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, naturally there are always available outstanding members of the legal profession who are prepared to serve as judges, even at great personal sacrifice. I hope that, generally speaking, the vacancies will be filled as considered appropriate, having regard to the necessity of there being no break in the administration of justice.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in view of his known interest in matters that have historical value. Can the Prime Minister advise the house if he has noted the press reports that the famed R.C.M.P. schooner St. Roche is becoming a rotting hulk in the maritime museum and money is urgently needed for its restoration? If so, will consideration be given to financial aid to preserve this historic ship?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a specific answer to the question, naturally, having had no notice. However, I do appreciate the reference the hon. member made to the fact that I am intensely interested in the preservation of those historic things which, unless preserved, will be lost to Canadian generations to come. They are of the essence of Canadian history, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that anything that can be done to maintain and preserve these monuments will be done.

In so far as this specific question is concerned, I will ascertain the facts and report to the house at the earliest possible date.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's obvious interest in maintaining these historic relics of the past, would the Prime Minister, while giving consideration to the schooner mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East, also give consideration to maintaining that historical monument, the last of the stern-wheelers now in the Kootenays, the Moyie, now moored at Kaslo?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that it is the last of the stern-wheelers. It was the last of the stern-wheelers. However, that is a matter that in the ordinary course of events will receive the attention it deserves.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister, now that all these historical matters are being discussed, also look into preserving the canoe of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker)?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance of providing a constant supply of Nova Scotia groundfish, lobsters and scallops to the United States market, will the minister inform the house whether any action has been taken to assist Nova Scotia fishermen in transporting these items to the United States while the ferry Bluenose is undergoing her refit?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: I am pleased to announce that following continued efforts by my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg and also by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, this service will be carried out by a vessel named O.K. Service 5 which belongs to the Himmelman Supply Company. This vessel is being prepared at the present time, and the first trip will be made on Monday, February 13.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: I wonder if I could ask the minister a related question. In view of the importance of maintaining good communications with Newfoundland, can the minister say when he expects the east coast ferry will be completed?


Léon Balcer: I am sorry, but I cannot give the precise date at the moment.
90205-6-1224
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister, and ask him whether a list of areas where unemployment is chronic has been prepared by various departmental officials and submitted to the cabinet for consideration and approval.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the hon. gentleman, with the experience he has had in the cabinet, realizes that that question is improper.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not realize any such thing, but if that is the answer which the Prime Minister is giving me I should like to ask him a supplementary question. My supplementary question in this. Has the Prime Minister taken note of an article which appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald under the heading "Top Priority for Mining Communities" which reads:
Top priority has been given Nova Scotia's mining communities and the Ontario uranium centre of Elliot Lake in a list of areas of chronic unemployment-
The article goes on to state that this list of areas where there is chronic unemployment includes Glace Bay, Sydney Mines, Inverness, Florence, New Waterford, the mining communities in Pictou, and so on. Since this information has appeared in a newspaper article, I am asking the Prime Minister if he has any comment to make on it and whether it is a correct statement of what is being done.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not seen the article. One thing that I seem to be able to recall above everything else is that successive prime ministers have answered in these circumstances that in no circumstances is government policy introduced, or notice of it given to the House of Commons, by an observation on some speculative article.


Mr. J. P. Deschateleis (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of mounting unemployment is it the intention of the government to order a series of on the spot inspections of conditions in the hard-hit areas of Canada, along the lines of action presently being taken in the United States?


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour):: No
such decision has been arrived at by the government.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



RELEASE OF BILL TO PRESS BEFORE INTRODUCTION IN CHAMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of the Prime Minister's anxiety to ensure that parliamentary business is conducted in the proper way, will the right hon. gentleman explain why a press release was issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs yesterday giving the details of the bill concerning veterans pensions before that bill was introduced in the House of Commons?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of a press release being issued prior to first reading of the bill in the House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, this press release was issued yesterday and appears in the press this morning. The bill in question was circulated to hon. members after it appeared in the press.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was circulated just
this morning.


Mr. H. F. Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: If I may
be permitted to comment on this matter, Mr. Speaker, my information is that the copies of the press release were distributed after the bill was introduced in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But before it was available to hon. members.


Henry Frank Jones: It was introduced in the house, however.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am informed, and indeed the record shows, that full details of the bill were available to the press and the public before copies of the bill were made available to hon. members of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: The release is headed "For immediate release".


Mr. Speaker:: Unless the Leader of the Opposition suggests that there is a question of privilege involved-


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there is; affecting all hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: -if I am correct in my interpretation of what has been said, the bill was read the first time in the house and was therefore in the hands of the house before the press release was given.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister if he would comment on the fact that the details in regard to this bill appeared in the press release and were given


to the public yesterday before copies of the bill were available to hon. members of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think this is another of the hon. gentleman's duds. As a matter of fact, according to the parliamentary secretary first reading was given in this house yesterday. My hon. friend opposite has before him this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail-


Mr. Cardin:: AVhich was published last night.


John George Diefenbaker: -and of course any newspaper would have available to it the full details of the bill to which first reading was given last evening at 5.30, I understand.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, I happened to be in the house when first reading was given to the bill. The bill has only this morning- since the sitting started this morning-been made available to hon. members


Mr. Speaker:: I thought this matter was being raised as a question of privilege, but I think it is a question of the administrative acts of the minister and the parliamentary secretary. If the matter has been sufficiently aired we will pass to other business.


Lionel Chevrier: But it has not.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, just so the record is clear, let me say I was informed by officials of the House of Commons that 150 copies of the bill were available yesterday at noon for distribution to hon. members if the bill was required for second reading yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am not responsible for thfe actual distribution of copies of bills in the House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the minister when his departmental news release No. 68 on this matter headed "for immediate release" was issued?


Henry Frank Jones: It was issued, Mr. Speaker, right after first reading of the bill which then became a matter of public record-


John Whitney Pickersgill: But not available to hon. members of the house.


Henry Frank Jones: -and available, as the minister said, to hon. members of this house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question the desirability of having a debate on this matter. There have been several questions and several supplementaries and it seems to me the

facts have been sufficiently elicited. If there is comment to be made it should be made at a time when debate is permitted.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the only reason it was raised in the first place was because of the answer which the Prime Minister gave in connection with the areas of chronic unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that the reasons for raising it are of concern. It seems to me there have been sufficient questions on the topic.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I desire to be heard on this question, and I ask Your Honour for permission to make a statement in answer to what the parliamentary secretary has said. We on this side of the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member makes a statement he must lay a foundation for it either by a point of order or a question of privilege. Otherwise the hon. gentleman has no right to the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the foundation for the point I intend to make is that the statement made by the parliamentary secretary is inaccurate. The hon. member may have made it involuntarily but it is inaccurate nevertheless, because we on this side of the house communicated with the distribution office and the bill in question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The answers which are given in response to questions asked at this period of the proceedings of the house are not subject to comment or debate. They may be inaccurate or they may be incorrect, but unless it is done by way of supplementary question to clarify the accuracy it is not open to the hon. member to follow the course he is following.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a question of the privileges of the house and whether the house has been misled.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question of privilege I will hear him, of course, but this matter has arisen out of the normal process of asking questions of a minister under his administrative responsibility. If there is a question of privilege, will the hon. member state it first and then we will see whether it is one that should be pursued.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to state the privilege as being this, that at ten o'clock this morning we inquired of the distribution office whether the bill was available and we were told it was not. That is a question of fact. Then, as I was asking a question on orders of the day, the bill was put on my
Inquiries of the Ministry desk by a page boy, so this completely contradicts what has been said by the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be contradictory, but I see no question of privilege. Bills are distributed in the ordinary course of events, and I consider the matter closed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege surely arises out of the fact that the parliamentary secretary said the bill was available to us last evening, when the fact is that we ascertained from the distribution office at ten o'clock this morning that the bill was not available.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I see no question of privilege involved. The parliamentary secretary may or may not be correct. If he wants to make the matter clear he may have the floor, but surely it is not a question of the privileges of the house that such a statement is inaccurate or not.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I sent notice of this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but perhaps in his absence I might direct it to the parliamentary secretary or the acting minister. Can the minister indicate to the house whether any analyses have been made of the so-called weight reducing preparations such as Metrecal and Quota and their effects. If so, can he make a report on the results of such analyses?


Hon. G. E. Halpenny (Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Minister of National Health and Welfare should be back on Monday, and I will take notice of the question.



INTERIM PAYMENT ON 1959-60 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing absence of the Minister of Agriculture and the absence of his parliamentary secretary, I wonder whether I might ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture if he can tell the house when an announcement will be made of an interim payment on last year's wheat crop?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Speaker. Not having had any notice of the question, I think the

Pension Act
hon. member will realize that I am not in a position to give that information. In fact, I have not got it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps the minister would do so on Monday if his colleague is still away.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member will raise the matter on Monday.



PENSION ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. C-67, to amend the Pension Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to deal at length with the new bill now before us, in view of the fact that we had a lengthy discussion at the resolution stage of the bill and, second, because it is one of those amending bills containing a number of clauses which does not lend itself to the discussion of a general principle on second reading at which time, under the rules of the house-


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order at this stage. A bill has been put on our desks without a number on it, and the bill that has been called for discussion is Bill No. C-67 under item No. 6 on the order paper. I am wondering whether the bill that has been distributed is the same as the one now under discussion. How is the bill to be identified?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my responsibilities do not go so far as to encompass the numbering of bills, which is a matter for the general administration of the House of Commons. The bill which has been distributed this morning and which I presume will be given a number deals with amendments to the Pension Act, as is stated on the cover. That is the one which is under discussion at the present time and for which I hope there will be general approval. I am now informed that it is Bill No. C-67.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure what the explanation is for the absence of the number, to which the hon. member for Ottawa West properly draws attention, but the bill which is placed before the house for second reading as Bill No. C-67 is the printed bill in the hands of members entitled "an act to amend the Pension Act". There has perhaps been some error on the part of the administration in not having the number placed on the bill.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps the matter can be clarified if the minister will assure us that there were no changes made in the bill after it was printed and before first reading.
[Mr. Harkness.l


Gordon Minto Churchill: There have been no changes made. This is the bill which received first reading yesterday and the copy I have in my hand on the face of it reads "Bill C-67". Other copies which do not have that number on it are, I judge, ones that were made available earlier today.


Frank Howard: I should like to raise another point of order. I do not wish to be objectionable about it, but perhaps it is a matter on which the house should make a determination. It is my understanding that bills cannot be proceeded with unless they are printed in English and French and it is so indicated on the order paper. I notice that under order No. 6 there is no such indication that the bill has been printed in English and French. Perhaps that matter should also be cleared up.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of the bill with no number on it. However, I asked for two copies, one in French and one in English, because I generally like to compare them, and I was told that there are French copies left but that there are no more English copies available. I do not think it is fair to members of the house to have only one side of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alexis Pierre Caron: You can laugh but you do not
understand much about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is clear that under the rules the bill cannot be proceeded with unless it is printed in both English and French. I was asking for the assurance of the officials of the house, and perhaps the minister will give me a minute to make sure that the bill is available in both languages.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it appears from the remarks from both parties on the other side of the house that they do not wish to proceed with the bill today.


Alexis Pierre Caron: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I object to what has been said by the minister. I do not object to continuing with the bill. I simply want to state that the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may properly take exception to the remark, but I am endeavouring to verify that the bill is available in the hands of the house in both languages.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the bill in French. At the same time, may I say that I am informed by Mr. Ollivier, the parliamentary counsel, that the bill was available to members yesterday immediately after its introduction and first reading.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Tell your distribution office.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that there are copies of the bill available in English and in French, but that the number of copies is limited. If the house does not wish to proceed in the absence of a copy in each language for every member, then a point might be taken. Is the house prepared to proceed under the circumstances?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I think we should proceed. I just wanted to show that the government has no respect for the rights of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: It is apparent that there is some endeavour being made to hold up this matter. The statements that have been made from various sections of the house this morning, and the questions asked earlier, indicate a disregard for the proceedings on the part of the opposition. Therefore I suggest that in view of their apparent opposition to this going on today we should proceed to another order of business.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister, as has happened before, has completely misrepresented the position of the opposition. We are anxious to get ahead with this bill.


An hon. Member:: Let us get ahead, then.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are anxious to get ahead with the bill, even though the bill is not numbered and even though at ten o'clock this morning we were told by the distribution office that the bill was not available. We are willing to overlook these technicalities and get ahead with the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: There have been some charges and counter-charges made, perhaps not strictly in accordance with the matter before the house. Second reading has been moved, and the house will proceed with the second reading unless it makes another direction. I think it would require the unanimous consent of the house to defer the matter. Will the minister proceed?


John George Diefenbaker: They ran for cover.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister does proceed, perhaps the Prime Minister's suggestion is one that has to be determined by the house, because in the absence of a copy in each language-oh, the Clerk advises me now that there are copies available in each language for each member, and that disposes of any point of order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Notwithstanding this technical difficulty that there is not a copy in each language available-


Some hon. Members:: There is.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -for every member, as you have observed, Mr. Speaker, and notwithstanding the fact that the bill I have is just
Pension Act
"C-blank", and notwithstanding the fact that copies of the bill were not available until 10.30 this morning, I think we should press ahead and perhaps the government's procedure will be more regular next time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Notwithstanding what the Leader of the Opposition now says, the question before the house is whether or not we shall go ahead. The attitude taken by hon. members was indicative of a desire to raise a storm concerning a matter of no importance-


Alexis Pierre Caron: The Prime Minister should not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think if the house will review the course of proceedings since this matter was raised first as a question on orders of the day, it will decide to proceed without further reference to any of these matters. The Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It would seem, Mr. Speaker-


Frank Howard: I have a question of privilege to raise, but I waited until the initial point of order had been settled. My question of privilege relates to the remarks of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and also the remarks of the Prime Minister, both of whom imputed motives to myself for having raised this point of order in the first place. I refer to the incorrect accusation of both hon. gentlemen that there was something nefarious and underhanded about this point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard no reference to the hon. member, and I see no question of privilege. There have been statements made on both sides of the house which in my opinion would have been better not made. However, I do not see any question of privilege.


Frank Howard: May I rise on a point of order and ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs to withdraw their underhanded and scurrilous remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will be placing himself in a position where he will be asked to withdraw if he does not observe the Speaker's rulings.


Frank Howard: I would only be on an equal
basis-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I think even the hon. member should be required to withdraw those last statements. It is customary with him to use language like that on occasion, and I think it should be withdrawn. There is nothing of a scurrilous nature in pointing out that the points that have been raised apparently

Pension Act
had a design in mind. If he did not have a design I am sure no one would suggest that he did, but these latter remarks of his cannot go unchallenged. The words "scurrilous" and "underhanded"-not that I have any sensitivity about anything the hon. gentleman says -go against the rules of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The words complained of were not directed to any specific individual.


An hon. Member:: They were directed to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, perhaps the Prime Minister would indicate-I agree that if the word "scurrilous" was applied to the Prime Minister it should be withdrawn. Does the hon. member who had the floor accept the responsibility for applying the word "scurrilous" to a particular member of the house?


Frank Howard: I am sure the record is clear in itself. I might say that I accept the withdrawal of the remarks of the Prime Minister in his initial statement, in any event.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, before I insist on withdrawal I should like to be satisfied as to the application of the word. I think perhaps the application was clear enough. I would ask the hon. member for Skeena to reconsider and withdraw the words "scurrilous", and "underhanded" as applied to statements from the government side of the house, because in my view that is unparliamentary and should not be made a precedent. I hope he will recognize the force and the meaning of the word "scurrilous". If he wishes to refer to a dictionary he will find that the implications of it are not such as should be applied between hon. gentlemen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I, in view of this statement of yours, Mr. Speaker, ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the observation that the opposition had any design in raising this matter. The opposition's design is to proceed as quickly as possible with this bill, but perhaps the Prime Minister will withdraw his observation that we had something in mind-


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Another point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Ferguson Browne: This has nothing at all to do with the matter that was raised-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition perhaps was rising on a point of order. I do not know upon what other grounds he would have the floor. He cannot be interrupted on a point of order, and a point of order cannot be raised while another point of order is being taken.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I just want to repeat that the Prime Minister might be asked to withdraw his observation that we had some sinister design in mind-


John Ferguson Browne: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker; there was a question before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume his seat and allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue.


Mr. Drysdale:: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a point of order that intervened in the present point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member resume his seat and allow the Leader of the Opposition to make his point of order. One point of order cannot be made while another point of order is being considered.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: But there was a point being considered-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I could resume my remarks if the hon. member would sit down.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: There was a question of privilege before the house, and I do not believe a point of order can intervene.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have given your decision, Mr. Speaker, and I assume it is not going to be upset by the member on my left. I said, speaking to my point of order-


John Andrew W. Drysdale: There was a question of privilege before the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the hon. member would sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the Leader of the Opposition give me the floor?


An hon. Member:: One thing at a time.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that it is in order to resume the proper consideration of the matter which is before the house. A little bit of restraint and perhaps a little bit of give and take are necessary. Feelings have been aroused by statements which were made from one side and from the other. I did not feel it necessary to intervene. Charges are made from time to time that hon. members are delaying proceedings. It is questionable whether that raises a matter of privilege. On the other hand, charges have been levelled at the government benches and there is the question of a statement made by the hon. member for Skeena. It was an improper statement, as I have indicated to him.
I would suggest that all hon. members who have participated in this fruitless debate to this point allow me to accept their withdrawal

of any remarks that might be offensive, and that we proceed. Is it agreed that we proceed on that basis?


Some hon. Members:: Proceed.


John Ferguson Browne: On this question may I say that a clearly slanderous remark has been made against the Prime Minister of this country. As a member of this House of Commons I demand that it be withdrawn unqualifiedly and immediately, and suggest that no other matter should be allowed to intervene until it is dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: As my suggestion apparently has not met with acceptance, I must come back to the Prime Minister's objection to the words "scurrilous and underhanded" which I take it the Prime Minister asserts were directed toward him.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Prime Minister
please assist me in this matter of the words complained of and the party to whom they were directed?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I can assist you, Mr. Speaker, in that matter. The words "scurrilous and underhanded" were directed by the hon. member for Skeena against the Prime Minister and myself.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: I am giving the hon. member for Skeena an opportunity to deal with the matter.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is quite true that I used the words. I consider them to be on an equal footing with the imputation of sinister motives by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs against me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has not availed himself of the opportunity of dealing with the request which I made for reconsideration of these words as applied to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Unless he advises me that he did not intend those words to be directed to the two hon. members, I shall order him to withdraw them.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to indicate that the remarks apply to the imputations themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Frank Howard: I do not know why I should be asked to withdraw when the Prime Minister can sit there in his seat without doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can deal with only one matter at a time. I am asking the hon.
Pension Act
member either to deny that those remarks were intended to refer to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs or to withdraw them unconditionally.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Frank Howard: Inasmuch as Your Honour can deal with only one matter at a time, I suggest with deference that you deal with the matter originally raised in objection to imputation of sinister motives.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will give the hon. member one more chance before I name him.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, out of deference to you and my respect for the position you hold in this House of Commons, but out of no respect for the comments and the gleeful applause of hon. members for the other side of the house, may I say this. In the absence of such gleeful applause I certainly would without hesitation withdraw the remarks. However, with no disrespect to Your Honour, I think I must take the latter course you suggest.


Mr. Speaker:: In that event it is my duty, painful though it is, to name the hon. member for Skeena.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister would now withdraw the imputation of motives attributed to this side in attempting to get this bill proceeded with in a proper way.


Mr. Speaker:: I have named the hon. member. Of course it is the duty of the house leader to consider what appropriate action should be taken. I shall deal in due course with the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In view of your decision, Mr. Speaker, concerning the reluctance of the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw his words I now move, seconded by the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton):
That the hon. member for Skeena be suspended for the duration of this day's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say aye.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would ask whether or not this motion can be discussed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then on a point of order we shall call for a recorded vote on this motion, because we feel it is unjustified.

Pension Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion that has been moved by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and seconded by the Postmaster General is:
That the hon. member for Skeena be suspended for the duration of this day's sitting.


Hazen Robert Argue: In the 16 years I have been here I have never seen this happen previously.


Mr. Speaker:: Fortunately this is not the kind of thing which has arisen previously in my experience or I suppose, in that of most hon. members of the house. I am advised that at the time the motion is put the hon. member concerned might be permitted to make such extenuating remarks as he wishes to make, if he desires to do so. If not, the motion will be put.


Frank Howard: I do know, Mr. Speaker, what is meant by the words "extenuating remarks".


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising to speak on a point of order?


William McLean Hamilton: Reading from the fourth edition of Beauchesne, paragraph 134, it would appear that the procedure which has been laid down in a case like this is that the hon. member is to offer such explanation as is forthcoming before any motion is made for him to withdraw. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that such opportunity was offered to the hon. member and he made certain explanations. According to Beauchesne, following the motion which has been made by the house leader the hon. member, in accordance with practice, withdraws immediately; and there is a procedure set forth if he does not withdraw which involves the Sergeant-at-Arms. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we should follow this procedure which has been followed in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: What the hon. member says does not indicate any practice against allowing the hon. member whose conduct is in question to make an extenuating statement if he wishes to do so. That was the course followed the last time this procedure was used.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, not to abuse the privilege that I have at the moment I may just say briefly that as hon. members will know, I think, this arose from comments of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Prime Minister, following that, to the effect that those of us in the opposition who raised the initial point of order as to whether or not the bills were printed in English and

French were engaging in delaying tactics and did not want to proceed with this particular bill today.
It was the imputation of that motive to which I objected and which occasioned the remarks I made, as I tried to indicate earlier. I think it is extremely unfortunate, of course, that in the heat of debate, perhaps, the Minister of Veterans Affairs initially said something he would not normally have said upon more calm reflection and would not have imputed these motives to me. That is why I made the other comments.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated the provocation which induced him to engage in the conduct just now complained of, but if he has nothing to say about his own conduct I shall put the motion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to say a word on behalf of the official opposition with regard to this painful matter. I understand it is possible-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry; the motion is not debatable. The only precedent is that the person involved may make a statement. The subject matter of the motion itself is not debatable and must be put.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for clarification, could you confirm the fact that the hon. member was named solely because, whatever provocation he may have had, he used the words, "scurrilous and underhanded" as applied to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and there is no other issue involved in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I can confirm that the words now used by the Leader of the Opposition, "scurrilous and underhanded", as applied to the hon. members on the government side who made statements in the course of the discussion, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, were the words which I thought ought not to have been used and should have been withdrawn.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is as follows:
That the hon. member for Skeena be suspended for the duration of this day's sitting.
Those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
Before the taking of the vote:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is called, I have not had an opportunity as yet to say what I would have said earlier. As the ruling has been made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I get the leave of the house for the Prime Minister to speak-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -because after the vote has been called, the Prime Minister may speak only by leave of the house-


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: It has no reference at all to this matter. I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Prime Minister give me an opportunity to consider this? Standing order No. 8 provides that when hon. members have been called in preparatory to a division no further debate is permitted. As I understand it, the Prime Minister was not rising for the purpose of debate but to raise a question of privilege. In our practice in the past I think the Speaker has not allowed any point to be raised in the course of a division but has dealt with it afterward, and that is why I suggested that the Prime Minister might have the leave of the house. I shall ask the house again if it is prepared to give the Prime Minister leave to interrupt the division.


Hazen Robert Argue: All right: let us hear him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister interrupts the division by unanimous consent and makes a statement I assume that other hon. members will have an opportunity to comment on that statement at once, before the division is taken.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances, as there is not unanimous consent, I think perhaps the proper course to follow is to proceed with the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. The Prime Minister was rising on a question of privilege in the course of the division.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, earlier today there was some objection raised as to an alleged allegation on my part that what had taken place this morning had been designed to hold up the bill in the question. Any implication of that kind was the farthest thing from my mind. There was no design in that regard, and I want to make it unequivocally clear so there will be no misunderstanding whatsoever in that connection. After all, I would not suggest a design. I could think of a thoughtless result, but I am sure that a design cannot be and would not be attributed to hon. gentlemen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister has dealt with this point of order which we on this side raised earlier with regard to imputations that we thought were made as to the motives for the point we raised in connection with the bill. It seems to me that if this withdrawal could have taken place earlier the whole unhappy business would not have arisen.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, naturally we accept the word of the Prime Minister when he says that he did not wish to impute to opposition members motives designed to hold up the progress of the bill in question. I think these remarks might better have been made much earlier, although they are acceptable at this time. If that had been done I am quite sure that the vote that has been taken would not have been necessary.
The rules of this house are important, Mr. Speaker. The rules of the house must be sustained if parliament is to carry on its business in a democratic way, but I suggest there is a well known practice and it is well established that rulings and decisions must be meted out fairly to all members on both sides of the house at all times. If I may venture to suggest something, Your Honour, I suggest that in considering statements by members of the house every effort must be made to consider the statements in the light of the actual words used, and that the consideration should not in any way be influenced by the person or the office of the person who uses the words.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member now seems to me to be addressing his remarks not only to the Chair but about the Chair, and I hope he will not continue in that vein.


Hazen Robert Argue: All I was saying was that in dealing with members of the house an effort must be made-history and the record of

previous Speakers show this-to deal with members on both sides of the house on equal terms and, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: -the Prime Minister should have said earlier what he has just said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I ask the hon. member to resume his seat if that is the substance of his remarks. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has the floor.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in introducing the second reading of Bill No. C-67, an act to amend the Pension Act, I am sure all members will wish to proceed with the second reading stage as expeditiously as possible in view of the fact that we had a lengthy discussion at the resolution stage and in view of the fact that as the bill is an amending bill it deals with a number of particulars which can be more readily discussed in committee. There is also the fact that after second reading of the bill it is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs so the members of that committee may examine it in all its details and have available to them the expert advice of officials of the department in case there are any matters that require further explanation.
Without discussing the various segments of the bill I might, however, emphasize that its main purpose is to increase the pensions that are being paid to disabled veterans. I will just indicate the extent of the support which our country is giving the men who suffered disability in wartime. Reading from the annual report of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the fiscal year 1959-60, page 73, I note that for world war I the number of people drawing disability pensions as of March 31, 1960 was 47,845, and their dependents numbered 14,812. The total on the rolls for world war I is 62,657. In so far as world war II is concerned, the number drawing disability pension is 104,911 and their dependents number 17,546, for a total of 122,457.
The annual liability as of March 31, 1960 for both wars was $144,899,781. It might be of interest to the house to put on Hansard the figures with regard to service in the first and second world wars as well as Korea, and indicate the number who became pensioners as a result of these wars. The number who served in world war I totalled 619,636 men and women. Of these 110,000 became pensioners, and of these pensioners 56,002 have since died and 46,482 are still on the pension rolls. In so far as world war II was concerned there were 1,086,343 men and women who served. Of these, 124,401 became pensioners and 11,338 of these pensioners have since died,

leaving 105,294 who are still receiving pensions. In so far as the Korean war is concerned there were 26,791 men and women who served. Of these, 2,032 became pensioners and 49 of these pensioners have since died, leaving 1,636 who are still receiving pensions.
Each year the pension commission, pursuing a constant task, has found it necessary to add people to the pension rolls. During the fiscal year 1959-60, 219 new pensions were awarded to veterans of world war I; 1,981 new pensions were awarded to veterans of world war II and 62 new pensions were awarded to veterans of the Korean war. Of course each year the number who die and pass off the pension rolls increases. So far as world war I veterans are concerned, they are passing off the pension rolls now at the rate of about 2,500 per year.
The problem, however, continues and will continue for many years, and the financial obligation undertaken by the people of Canada is as I have indicated. It was a larger burden on the country some years ago when our population was smaller. In 1930 the financial obligation for pensions was about 9 per cent of the total government expenditures. In 1960, with the great increase in government income and the great increase in government expenditures, the pension commitment represented 2 per cent of total government expenditures.
The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, indicates an increase of approximately $30 million. It deals with all categories who come on the pension rolls, graduated according to the percentage of disability from 100 per cent down to 10 per cent. The bill deals also with the dependents of pensioners and with additional pensions for children. It would be improper, perhaps, to deal in detail with each one of the changes that have been made in. these various categories. This can be done in committee. The bill as printed indicates quite clearly the new scale of pensions and gives a comparison with the old scale. Most of our pensioners are below the 50 per cent rating but there are, of course, large numbers who are in the heavier disability classes from 50 per cent up to 100 per cent.
We hope that through this measure the payments to our disability pensioners will be kept somewhat in accord with the general increase in the cost of living that has occurred over the years, and that they will be placed in a position where they are able to look after themselves, as they all want to do, without being dependent upon other sources for support.
As I mentioned yesterday, the contribution made by our disabled pensioners has been great. They will carry a burden all their lives from the service they performed, and the
Pension Act
people of Canada try to compensate them in part for some of that burden by the pensions that have been in operation over the years and by the increases which we are now presenting to the house.
I hope the house will accept the suggestions in this bill, examine it with care in the standing committee and in committee of the whole when the bill comes back to the house, and pass it as early as is conveniently possible. Then the bill can go to the other place for consideration. I commend Bill No. C-67 to the consideration of the house, and I hope it will meet with general approval.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, on second reading we debate the principle of the bill. The principle of this bill is the same as that of the resolution which preceded it and to which we have already given unreserved support. It would seem unnecessary to repeat what we have already said at the resolution stage. We have not had this bill in our hands long enough to study it and find out how the principle has been actually applied to the various categories of veterans and their dependents.
Here, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should raise a point of order, because the bill which I have in my hand seems to be different from the one the minister has. Section 1 of my bill says:
Schedules A and B of the Pension Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
There is nothing substituted therefor in my bill; it is just blank. On the following page the explanatory note states:
Schedules A and B at present read as follows:
The schedules in my bill are those showing the present rates. Hence we are at a loss to know just what change has been made in the regular scales by this bill.


John Ferguson Browne: If I may, I should like to speak to the point of order that has been raised. If the hon. member looks at page 2 he will find the new schedule. It takes up the whole page.


Chesley William Carter: I am grateful for the explanation, Mr. Chairman. I accept the correction.
We learn from the press that the percentage increase is somewhere about 20 per cent. That figure, of course, is a great deal below the figure of 33s per cent recommended by the Canadian Legion. Perhaps this is all that can be afforded at the present time. However, we feel that the veterans will be grateful for even this increase, which is urgently needed in many cases. We are hoping that before too long it will be possible to increase the rates again in order to bring them up to the level recommended by the Canadian Legion.

Pension Act
I am glad to know that the bill is to be studied by the standing committee on veterans affairs. No doubt, as usual, many worth-while suggestions will be coming forward from that committee, and we hope the government and the minister will see fit to incorporate them into amendments to the bill now before us.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to make a few brief observations on the bill. As the minister said, this bill to amend the Pension Act has as its main purpose the increasing of disability pensions. The representations recently made to the government by the Canadian Legion recommended that the rates payable under schedules A and B of the Pension Act be increased so that pensioners will regain the position of equality of income, as compared with custom guards, cleaners, helpers and army privates, that was in effect in 1920. In order to achieve that objective the Canadian Legion suggested that a 33J per cent increase in disability pensions would be required.
However, in the bill we notice that the increase is only approximately 20 per cent. That figure is considerably below what the Legion and other organizations thought was necessary at this time in order to compensate veterans and their dependents for the increase in the cost of living and bring them more into line with the increase in wages and so on.
In that connection I would say this. While I am sure the increase will be welcomed by veterans and their dependents across Canada and by members of this House of Commons, it nevertheless falls considerably short, shall I say, of the amount sought by the veterans organizations and of the expectations raised in view of the use of the word "substantial". Of course, Mr. Chairman, that is a relative term. The word "substantial" can mean different things depending on whether you are on the paying end or on the receiving end of any question. It can have different meanings to different people, of course.
I also noticed that in the bill there are a number of other amendments which I am sure will be welcomed by the veterans organizations and by the veterans and their dependants. They are useful and purposeful amendments. However, there again we notice that a number of amendments recommended by the Canadian Legion, the national council of veterans and other veterans organizations have been, shall I say, overlooked. To that extent I presume there will be some disappointment.
When the minister was speaking I listened most attentively, as I usually do to the Minister of Veterans Affairs when he is speaking on veterans affairs. He mentioned that

the percentage of the national income that was required to meet the obligations to veterans in Canada in 1930 was about 9 per cent, if I heard him correctly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nine per cent of the national expenditure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That was my mistake; I should have said 9 per cent of the national expenditure. He also stated that the amount required in 1960 was about 2 per cent of the national expenditure. This clearly indicates that while there has been an enormous increase in our production, in tax collection and consequently in national expenditure, apparently the financial responsibility accepted by the federal government for the veterans and their welfare has declined to a considerable extent in percentage since 1930.
Therefore we must remember that in 1930, in the depression years, the government was able to afford 9 per cent of the national expenditure, according to the minister. We spent, in 1960, only 2 per cent. I think that is a rather good argument in support of the representations made by the Legion and other veterans organizations for the increase they requested. I think it is at least a clear illustration of the modest demands made by the Canadian Legion and of their responsible approach to this problem at this time.
During his remarks the minister paid to the veterans of Canada a tribute which we all heartily endorse. I will say little more at this time. I am going to conclude these few brief remarks because the minister has said that the bill is going to the veterans affairs committee, where the veterans organizations will have an opportunity to make their representations and their points and the members of the committee will have an opportunity to ask questions. I am sure that as in the past, as all members of the committee regardless of party have the interests of the veterans at heart, there will be the usual close study of this legislation and serious consideration of the representations made by representatives of the veterans organization. There is therefore, in my opinion, no occasion for a lengthy debate on the motion for second reading of this bill at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The question is the following: Mr. Churchill, seconded by Mr. Balcer moves that-


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I could be permitted to speak now, it will take me just one minute or two.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we carry on for five minutes, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps finish this business?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Does the house give unanimous consent to carrying on?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I had no intention of speaking on the second reading of this bill and I should, of course, have made these remarks at the resolution stage. But I was out of the house yesterday when the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Jones), the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, spoke and it was only this morning that my attention was drawn to what he had to say at the resolution stage as reported at page 1886 of yesterday's Hansard.
I have no desire to enter into any kind of controversy with the hon. member or anyone else. The hon. member referred to a statement I had made the day before in which I had said, as reported at page 1867 of Hansard:
It may well be asked what right have I to get up and say anything on this subject 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.
I think if the hon. member for Saskatoon would look carefully at the preceding paragraph he would see that when I made that observation I was referring to the Newfoundland forestry corps, and that the letter to which he drew attention-which I must confess, quite frankly, I had forgotten having written-which I addressed to my then colleague, Mr. Lapointe, had reference to army veterans who had enlisted in the British forces, which I maintained in my letter ought to be considered as being tantamount to having served in the forces of their own country. I say this because the British forces were, at the time they served in them, the forces of
Pension Act
their own country. On reading what the hon. member put on Hansard I recollected the circumstances very well indeed. I admit that I was somewhat irritated by the reply I received at that time, but that problem, of course, has been very largely rectified.
I do not know precisely-I confess it; I have no record to check-when the plight of the forestry corps was first drawn to my attention. The hon. member, I am sure quite rightly, pointed out that it had been drawn to the attention of the government before I was a member of it. I do not remember precisely; but it was brought to my own attention quite some time afterwards. However, I stand by what I said later at the resolution stage, that whatever the deficiencies of the previous governme'nt may have been in this matter-and personally I think there were deficiencies-I think those deficiencies should be corrected now with the least possible delay.
There is just one other point I want to add to reinforce again what I said the other day. I do not think that the forestry corps comes within the ambit of section 38 of the terms of union, but I do think it is not a matter of their rights under the constitution. It is a matter of the spirit of confederation and the proper assimilation, under the principles of natural justice, of these veterans who though they were not enlisted men served in exactly the same way, under exactly the same hazards as the Canadian forestry corps, who were enlisted men.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have been very interested in following the debate of this matter for the last two or three days. I am impressed by the statements that have been made by hon. members on both sides of the house and the support that has been given to the legislation we now have before us.
But I am concerned about one matter. I am very concerned about something that happened earlier this day that would indicate that it may not be advantageous for the members of the house, for the members of the veterans affairs committee, or for the organizations that are interested in veterans affairs to have in the bill this clause which indicates that the act will only become law the first of the month following the passing of the bill. I would suggest that the government should amend this so that the bill will come into force on the day of first reading. If this is not done, it seems to me that the committee is going to be working against the end of February as a deadline to see that all readings of this bill are given prior to that date so this date of March 1 can be the qualifying date.

Pension Act
I suggest that this may be the result. It may not, but it may and therefore I think it is a bad thing if it prevents any organization making the full representation that they may wish to make in relation to any segment of this legislation. I am aware of the requests that have been made by many of the organizations, and I am aware that this bill does not completely satisfy those requests.
While I agree that it is more than people can expect-when they ask for something, they do not necessarily always expect to get it-I think they do expect the opportunity of preparing an argument to indicate that they would like, and for good reasons, more to be done than is being done, no matter how much that may be.
It is for this reason that I hope the government will give serious consideration to withdrawing that clause which puts a deadline in the bill, and will put in a very simple clause which would mean that this legislation would be retroactive to the day of first reading. If the government does not see fit to do that then there may be other methods open to me as a private member to try to accomplish it.
But I would strongly urge the government to eliminate any unpleasantness that may have arisen and any fear that may have been indicated in people's minds, that if the deadline of the end of this month were not met it would produce hardship and would eliminate the payment of the increase in pensions which the veterans need very, very badly. Also, this would afford full discussion in committee and other stages of this bill.


Mr. J. M. Forgie (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to this question of the act being retroactive, I think it should be made retroactive to January 1 this year instead of the day of first reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I must advise the house that if the minister speaks now he closes the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just wish to say one or two words, Mr. Speaker. The suggestions which have now been brought to the attention of the house will, I think, be given very serious consideration by the committee. It would appear at this moment that there is ample time to conclude all other stages of the bill before the end of February. I am sure the committee when it considers the matter will give attention to the remarks which have just been made by hon. members on the other side.
In concluding the debate I want to correct what appears to have been a misapprehension. Remarks were made this morning to the effect that the Canadian Legion had asked
(Mr. Peters.]
for a higher percentage increase than is proposed in the bill. My understanding is that the Canadian Legion asked for an increase of 33J per cent some time ago based on the situation which prevailed in 1956, and in the fall session of 1957 legislation was passed retroactive to July 1 of that year which raised the pension rates on a graduated scale. For the 100 per cent disability pensioner the increase was 20 per cent; for the married person with no children it was 17.6 per cent; for the pensioned widow with no children, 15 per cent; for the dependent parent it was 16 per cent. No increase was granted in respect of the children. The bill now before us makes an increase of 20 per cent across the board and a 33J per cent increase for the children, so that over-all the increases suggested in the bill exceed the request made by the Canadian Legion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on veterans affairs.
[Stage Direction]
House again in committee of supply, the Deputy Chairman, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Immigration branch-
51. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1 388,640.
Mr. Badanai:: I should like to make a few observations before this item is passed, and I should like to preface my remarks on this important and vital subject with a brief quotation from an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of January 31, 1951. I shall use it as a text, because it wraps up the whole question in just a few words which I should like to see transcribed in large letters and placed, preferably, on the wall of the office of the minister of immigration. I quote:
What Canada needs is a vigorous immigration policy, selective in the sense that it encourages those who are most likely to take advantage of the opportunities which Canada offers. These will not necessarily be persons who come here to work in a particular trade or profession; they will include persons of energy and initiative who are ready to build a new career in Canada by enterprise and hard work.
According to the Toronto Telegram, our present Prime Minister made the following statement on April 26, 1957:
Increased population was required if Canada's development was to keep pace with her vast resources. A Conservative government would apply a vigorous immigration policy in co-operation with the provinces. The Immigration Act would be overhauled-"Canada must populate or perish''.
That is a noble statement, and it is one which people who are devoid of prejudice

and who have at heart the interests of Canada and her development will, indeed, applaud. The people of Canada gave the right hon. gentleman a mandate to do just that, among other things which I intend to mention today, but nearly four years have gone by and no one has seen a vigorous immigration policy put into effect, nor have we seen a glimpse of the overhaul, so long promised, of the Immigration Act.
What did we see? It will be recalled that actions to restrict immigration were among the first acts of this administration when it took office in June, 1957. The right hon. gentleman's principal minister, that is the Minister of Finance, made the following observations in the course of the budget debate in 1958 and I quote:
Population growth itself does not ensure progress, but in a country the size of ours it has a special significance. It provides a greater market for our agricultural produce and for the products of our factories and reduces vulnerability to changes in external demand. It brings us a greater diversity of talent and the means to employ it to better advantage. It reduces the per capita cost of supplying excellent services in this great land. There can be no doubt that the population growth of the post-war period has had these effects.
If the minister meant what he said, then I would assume he was not in favour of the restrictive measures which were imposed at that time. Now I come to what the minister responsible for immigration has been saying. Bless her heart, I rather like her. The hon. lady's heart was, no doubt, set on introducing changes to the act long before this, but I suspect that restraining influences have upset her earlier intentions which, indeed, have run very much counter to her frequently expressed conviction that unemployment is not increased by bringing immigrants into this country. Last year, during discussion of the estimates of her department the hon. lady promised a thorough revision of the Immigration Act but declared she was anxious not to bring in a half baked piece of legislation which would not stand the test of time. I wonder if this proposed legislation is about burned out?
At the present time Canada's immigration policy, if one can call it a policy, is based on a premise composed of two factors; first, the employment situation at a given time and, second, the racial composition of the country. In practical terms the present regulations mean that the government controls the flow of immigration from year to year and from month to month in accordance with estimates of the economic climate while at the same time favouring immigrants from certain countries. I think this is an unworkable and discriminatory practice, in addition to being unrealistic.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
How can we reconcile declarations against racial discrimination with what is happening in Canada today when, in actual practice, though we do not reject people on an individual basis, we follow a policy of discrimination against whole nations? It is a policy which is indeed hard to explain, especially to friends in Asiatic countries. Take for instance, the case of Chinese refugees. That of the Japanese is not better. By and large these people make excellent citizens. Most of them are noted for their almost unimpeachable character. A few months ago I came across a news item which dealt with a tribute to a Chinese who ran for alderman in the city of Calgary. He topped the polls and no one will be surprised if in the future he is elected mayor.
Contributions in specialized fields have been made by countless newcomers from many lands. Take, for instance, the case of Mr. Ernest Hakka, an immigrant who came to Canada from Finland eight years ago. Since his arrival here he has invented a machine which will melt snow off city streets for 60 cents a ton, which ordinarily would cost $12 per ton to remove by truck. An appreciable number of Japanese live in Fort William and surrounding districts. It is a matter of record that their conduct as citizens is well above the average, and we could do with more of them. In an interview in Winnipeg two or three months ago the minister made the statement that:
-fears of rising unemployment this winter will not influence the federal government to cut back its immigration program.
She then proceeded to say that:
-every winter the government does its best to persuade immigrants not to come here during the winter.
I wonder what the hon. lady meant by persuasion? If she had said that immigrants were not allowed to come in the winter it would have been a statement closer to the facts. We have the government immigration policy for this winter, at any rate. Simply stated it appears to be a policy of not discouraging immigrants from coming to Canada. The government is just discouraging them, period.
The country needs a policy to encourage immigration rather than to discourage it. It is a matter of record that periods of peacetime prosperity and least unemployment have invariably been identified with a high flow of immigrants. The United States began a vigorous immigration program at a time when that country was poor and backward. The people they brought in without the restrictions and red tape now in use brought about
1940	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the great wealth and power which the republic to the south now enjoys. The same story is being repeated today in Australia.
West Germany, comparatively small in territorial size and very densely populated, received an influx of more than 9 million refugees from eastern Europe in a period of just a few years after the war and the flow is still continuing at a rate of more than
200,000	a year. Yet, notwithstanding the addition of this great number of destitute people, these immigrants turned out to be one of Germany's major assets in the rapid recovery of that country. Today the living standard of West Germany is higher than it has ever been and unemployment is practically non-existent.
I have often expressed the conviction that we are losing a good bet when we ignore the advantage of admitting immigrants who will settle on the land. On previous occasions I have indicated the success which several Dutch families have made in farming in the district of Thunder bay. As population increases and as more and more people flock to urban centres the need for an expansion of agriculture will become apparent.
Every person or family who will undertake to work and develop land suitable for agriculture-extensive tracks of virgin land are available, in my constituency, at least- will not only be choosing a sane and profitable way of life but will also be conferring a benefit on Canada, and since so few native born Canadians will take up farming as their life's work the only answer is to bring in willing hands, farm people from as many countries as possible and as many of them as can be induced to come.
Canada has the potential to handle at least a quarter of a million newcomers every year for an indefinite period of time. Let us now lay the foundation for a worth-while immigration policy which will give our country the shot in the arm she sorely needs.
According to the minister's recent pronouncement, future immigrants are to be selected according to skills and education. The minister has since denied having made that statement and her denial has been accepted. Immigration officials nevertheless appear mainly to favour university graduates. The forefathers of most Canadians came to Canada with anything but university degrees; indeed, they come with few skills and for the most part the degrees they carried were those of qualified hard workers.
It is true, of course, that with the present advance in technology, heavy physical work is no longer the predominant occupation of our labour force but if we are going to open up our northern frontiers-more popularly known as the northern vision-we will need


many hardy pioneers of a fibre which will stand up to northern hardships. It will be easier to attract newcomers to these areas than it will be to find among our native Canadians the necessary number of people to develop the north.
Premier Frost of Ontario speaking to the good roads association annual meeting on October 20, 1960 said in part:
Canada is only at her beginning of opportunity and a greater and more useful population is essential to this country if these opportunities are to be developed.
At this point I should congratulate the minister on the excellent address which she delivered on January 26, 1961 to the Winnipeg real estate board on the subject "How the Immigrants Are Helping Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hubert Badanai: I gather from the applause that other hon. members have already read the statement but if there are hon. members of this committee who have not read the address, a copy of which was furnished to me, I commend it to their attention because it is a good document and my unreserved congratulations are extended to the minister.
In addition to the pertinent facts pointed out by the minister in her address concerning the contribution to Canada made by immigrants I wish to add a word about the tremendous purchasing power which our new Canadians have infused into the Canadian economy. Newcomers to our shores since 1946 have created a new market equal to a city of the size of metropolitan Toronto. I venture to say that the success of many businesses in the future may well rest in large measure upon their ability to attract these new customers, especially since these new arrivals happen to be in the age group of buyers who make large expenditures. According to reliable estimates 282,164 men, women and children from 50 different countries were admitted to Canada in 1957 which was the greatest year of immigration since 1913. These immigrants created in one single year a consumer demand of approximately $200 million.
The eventual need for motor vehicles and household appliances in one single year may exceed, in round figures, 60,000 automobiles,
70.000	radios, 60,000 washing machines, 60,000 refrigerators, 60,000 sewing machines,
40.000	vacuum cleaners, 30,000 electric stoves, 30,000 television sets, 20,000 oil furnaces, 12,000 coal and coke furnaces, 4,000 gas stoves and 4,000 home freezers, to say nothing of the need for housing which will give a great boost to the housing industry. Each of these people creates a demand for new housing.

You will agree, Mr. Chairman, that this is an impressive list of consumer goods running into many millions of dollars and employing thousands of people in producing them. These are, I repeat, estimated requirements of only one year's influx of immigrants, and there is every reason to expect that this market will be renewed year after year. Unfortunately the only immigrants allowed into the country since 1959 were, with some exceptions, mainly dependents who joined relatives already established here and some workers who came over to take sponsored employment.
The present selective system is not designed to populate and develop Canada. When a government rejects willing and healthy persons it is becoming too selective with the inevitable result that it will retard the economic expansion needed now more than ever to re-establish a climate of confidence and prosperity in the country.
Economists have been saying that there is no connection between immigration and unemployment. A recent analysis of immigration and unemployment made by the Canadian Labour Congress established the opinion that immigration cannot be considered a factor in the present high unemployment situation. In other words, it discounts the notion that today's unemployment is the result of the number of immigrants admitted in recent years. This is an important admission by labour since some of their pronouncements in the past have not been too favourable to immigration.
I was very much interested in what the minister had to say last night about her policy of flexibility in view of the rigid formula of the present act and her statement that before long amendments to the act will be introduced. Her flexible attitude on the interpretation of the present regulations is very commendable, and I would urge that this flexibility be extended to allow prospective brides of Canadian citizens, which brides live in European or Asiatic countries, to be admitted without undue delay. I have known of cases in my own constituency where long delays have caused considerable distress to young people in love and, as you know, lovers are a rather impatient lot.
I listened with more than passing interest to the valuable suggestions made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, a former minister of citizenship and immigration, who on occasion does not hesitate to admit mistakes made under the act relative to restrictions when he occupied that position and who has also stated that immigrants admitted from nearly every country in the world
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration and their descendants have made their contribution to Canada as good Canadians. That was a really fine statement.
I have indicated at various times that I favour a more generous and positive immigration policy but I wish to point out that at no time have I advocated an open door policy. However, the need for revision of our thinking with regard to the number of new citizens Canada can absorb in each calendar year should be quite in order. The basis for selecting a new immigrant should not be national origin or academic accomplishments, desirable though they may be, but rather his character and willingness to work. I wish to conclude my brief remarks with another short quotation from the editorial page of the often quoted Globe and Mail- It is in these words:
What Canada offers today Is room and scope for the person of adventurous ambition, and we shall not select them-they will select us.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I have a limited number of matters that I should like to deal with at this time. I should like to refer the minister to the speech from the throne on November 17 last in the concluding paragraph of which I note the following pledge:
The estimates of amounts required for the public service and the payments authorized by parliament will be laid before you. These will include an appropriation for the work of the royal commission on government organization which has been recently established to recommend improvements in the organization and methods of operation of the departments and agencies of the government which it thinks will best promote efficiency, economy and improved service in the dispatch of public business.
This commission is commonly referred to as a Hoover-type commission along the lines of the Hoover commission which was so active across the border for a period extending over many years. I notice that in the immigration branch the minister is asking for a total of $13,294,321. This amount exceeds last year's total by $448,507 and there may be supplementary estimates which will add to the increase in the forthcoming fiscal year. What I should like to know is whether the so-called Hoover-type commission has yet investigated the operations of the immigration branch and if it has not whether the minister expects such an examination of this branch of her department to take place at an early date.
I do not have the statistics here but the number of immigrants now being allowed into Canada is only about half of what it was a number of years ago, and I wonder how the decline in the number of immigrants has been reflected in the annual amounts asked for by the immigration branch. When you divide the total of $13 million by some
100,000	proposed immigrants you arrive at
1942	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration an overhead cost for the immigration branch approximating $130 for every man, woman and child and in the case of a family of five, which I am sure is a normal household, would run to $650. This seems like an extraordinarily high overhead.
I notice that there are some 2,000 employees in the branch and 100,000 immigrants divided by 2,000 means that the average immigration officer, if he alone is involved in the processing of an application, is only able to accomplish the necessary work involved at the rate of one per week. I would not have the feeling, if I were an immigration official, that I was operating at the height of efficiency if I averaged only one immigrant each week. I should like to ask the minister, in the light of the fact that the number of immigrants was only half what it was in other years, has there been any drastic reduction in the amount of money requested for the operation of the branch. Has the operation of the branch been subjected to the government commission as we understood, by implication at least, all branches would be in the years ahead?
I should like to refer the minister also to another matter and to ask her for a report. I regret that I shall have to be out of the committee for about one hour, but I hope the minister will not forget and I can see the reply in Hansard if the reply is given during that hour. I noticed when the Prime Minister was speaking on the bill of rights on July 1, 1960 and as recorded at page 5646 of Hansard for that date-this is the only reference to what I am about to say that I can easily find but there were others which were even more distinct-the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, that is very necessary. There will be some statutes in existence which will have to be changed and which will be interpreted accordingly.
The Prime Minister left an understanding with this house that if the bill of rights became law every order in council that existed at that time, every item of legislation that was in existence and every item of regulation of the various ministries would have to be carefully reviewed in order to ensure that they complied with the spirit and intent of the bill of rights. I believe the minister has continually denied that any of the regulations of her department violate the bill of rights. We have contended that these regulations are based, in part at least, on racial discrimination. I should like the minister to indicate at this time whether the regulations of the department have yet been reviewed by some department or officer of the government to ensure that they do not continue to violate the intent and spirit of the bill of rights that was enacted last year.


I am asking the minister in effect, therefore, whether her department has been submitted to the Hoover-type commission for scrutiny and whether any of the regulations, in particular, have yet been submitted to some department or officer of government to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the bill of rights.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Perhaps inasmuch as the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has indicated that he will not be in the committee I might answer his questions now. To take the last one first, I think he would agree with me that it was new orders and acts which were to be reviewed by the Minister of Justice. I understand that any alleged variance with the spirit of the bill of rights or letter of the bill of rights is to be decided by the courts. In so far as existing legislation is concerned, we are taking a very hard look at it ourselves. I might add that that is one of the things that is holding up the introduction of the new act. We are being very careful indeed to make sure we do nothing that would in any way run contrary to either the letter or the spirit of the bill of rights.
Now with reference to the increase of $448,500 which my hon. friend noted, I might tell him that $410,000 of this is the result of increases in wages and salaries. If he will refer to the details on pages 144 to 151 he will find therein the notation that we actually, within those votes, have one less employee than we had previously. As he knows, however, there have been pay increases during the past year which have necessitated this additional amount of money.
It is impossible to break down the costs of immigration according to the number of immigrants who are landed because, in addition to those who come into this country as immigrants there are many people who come as visitors. All of these people have to be examined. There are businessmen coming into this country all the time. There are returning Canadian citizens, and there are 58 million border crossings. All of these people have to pass through the hands of the immigration department. It is, therefore, clearly improper to try to divide the number of landed immigrants into the cost and say that costs are rising because there are fewer immigrants and there is an increase in the cost of administration.
We have been very careful to keep the costs at a minimum. I do feel that if the costs could be broken down completely having regard not only to salaries and wages but the efforts of others which require remuneration, it would be found that the actual costs

have decreased. What increases there are- with the exception of Indian affairs-are entirely reflected in increases in salaries and wages, a matter over which we have no control departmentally. I think those were the only matters brought up by my hon. friend.
He has referred to the commission which is headed by Mr. Glassco. I can tell him that the deputy minister has been called to testify before this commission and we have been in communication with them. I do not believe for a moment that their investigation of the affairs of our department is at an end, in fact I think they have just touched the surface. We are most happy to co-operate with them. After all, this is a sizable department with some 5,000 employees. We are just as anxious as anyone else to see it streamlined to the extent possible consistent with proper service to the public.


John Ferguson Browne: Mr. Chairman, my remarks on this department will be very brief because I believe that the policy being followed by the department is very sensible and humane. I am really prompted to rise because of what I consider to be the rather incredible position taken by the Liberal party during this debate. It shows a complete lack of consistency or cohesion, just as is the case in so many other departments with which we deal. They have been up so many times complaining about unemployment in the country, and during those debates they profess to have great faith in what is said by the Canadian Labour Congress, which speaks for organized labour in this country.
However when something else seems to be politically expedient during the course of another debate, when they feel there might be some other group of voters to whom they could appeal, they take an entirely different course. Both the hon. member for Cartier and the hon. member for Fort William have complained about the reduction in immigration. They have complained, too, that the minister has said she has tried to discourage certain types of immigrant, particularly during the wintertime when jobs are rather scarce. I should like to bring to the attention of the committee what the Canadian Labour Congress has put forth as the official position of labour with regard to immigration. I think it should be put on Hansard. This is a memorandum to the government of Canada, dated January 22, 1959, and I am quoting from page 34 of that document:
So far as the number of immigrants to be admitted is concerned, this cannot be as readily solved by using any one arbitrary figure. Obviously the figure that is good for one year may not be
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration good for another. We are in agreement with the general economic immigration policy that the flow of immigrants should be regulated by the country's absorptive capacity. We agree further that to bring in immigrants during a period of high unemployment is to do an injustice both to the immigrants and to Canadian citizens who are looking for and unable to find work. As we have said before, organized labour is not opposed to immigration but it is opposed to bringing in immigrants when there are no jobs for them except at the expense of Canadian workers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what I said last night.


John Ferguson Browne: The
hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was certainly in a hurry to get to his feet and deny what some of his colleagues had said and I do not blame him for that because I am sure that the views which they expressed will not be very popular in this country. I do not blame him for wanting to get that statement on the record as quickly as possible. However, it is quite clear that he is not expressing the views of the entire Liberal party by any means.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


John Ferguson Browne: I do
not think the views that are being expressed by the Liberal party are going to be very popular. It is not a selfish thing I am suggesting but rather it is a humane thing to curtail immigration at times of unemployment and particularly during the winter. I am not suggesting it only as a protection for Canadian workers; I think it is a completely inhuman policy to bring in immigrants when there is no work for them and when it may result in such a struggle for them. We have had that experience too. We can recall that in 1956, when a period of unemployment quite evidently was approaching, the largest number of immigrants were brought in that had ever been brought into this country in one year and that action no doubt added to the great difficulties with which we were faced at that time. Subsequently, many of those people were faced with a good deal of hardship because they could not find employment and they were obliged to make their way back to their own countries.
I think it is quite clear that in suggesting some of these measures that have been taken to curtail immigration at times and for specific purposes, there is nothing selfish in any way about it but that it is actually as much for the protection of those who would come here as immigrants as for any other reason. Certainly as the country is able to absorb immigrants I am sure that all parties and all members of the house and the people of the country will want to welcome just as many as possible. Many of the various nationalities that have come here have made great
1944	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration contributions to this country and they will continue to do so in the future. However, it is neither fair to them nor fair to Canadians who are here and who are unemployed to bring them in at a time when the country is not in a position to absorb them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to reply immediately, Mr. Chairman, to some of the things that were said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and I will deal first with the last thing he said. He talked about the number of immigrants brought into this country in the year 1956. I can tell the hon. gentleman that as to the immigrants that were brought in, the records of the department as well as statements made by the acting minister in 1957, which appear in Hansard in reply to questions and everything else will show that the immigrants who were brought in in the year 1956 had no difficulty whatsoever in finding employment. In fact in the winter of 1956-57 there was not even the normal amount of seasonal unemployment in this country and no restriction was put on the movement of immigrants that winter; in fact the situation was quite the reverse.
What is more, the unemployment figures which have often been given for the month of June, 1957, when the previous government went out of office, indicate quite clearly that the level of unemployment was so low that it was what is usually regarded as full employment. Therefore, these statements that have been made are completely and entirely at variance with the facts that have been placed on the records by members of the present administration since they took office and before they realized the situation was changing.
It is true that after the beginning of 1958, when there was a good deal of unemployment, instead of trying to deal with the problem as they should have done and as it was their duty to do, members of the government from the Prime Minister down tried to find someone else to blame for unemployment and they have been doing that ever since. But I might remind the hon. gentleman that in the 1957 election campaign the Prime Minister was so unaware of the fact that immigration was causing unemployment that he promised to triple the immigration which the Liberals were carrying on at that time, as shown by a quotation put on the record by the hon. member for Fort William.
Of course, the Prime Minister was rather selective with regard to the localities in which he made these statements. He made them mostly to people at ethnic organizations and to their organizations but he did not go out and make them in the rural parts of Ontario where some of his friends were going around


and complaining about what the previous government had done in the great crisis in Austria in 1956, the great Hungarian movement which, as the hon. lady pointed out last year when I asked her a question, had been an entirely successful effort. When I asked her a question she pointed out that so few of these Hungarian immigrants, most of whom came out without anything except the clothes on their back, have need of help from the government that no separate statistics were being kept of the number.


John Ferguson Browne: They put Canadians out of work.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman now says that they put Canadians out of work. The minister did not say that in the speech she made in Winnipeg that was quoted by the hon. member for Fort William a few minutes ago.
The other thing that touched me particularly about the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who talks about one Liberal expressing one set of views and another Liberal expressing another set of views, is this. He obviously did not consult with his neighbour the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. Had he done so he would have found out, unless that hon. gentleman is talking differently from the way in which he talked a short time ago, that this was a brutal, inhumane department staffed with bureaucrats who were not fit to be in the public service. That is how that hon. gentleman got into this House of Commons, namely by the most shocking misrepresentation of a situation which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway knows very well and which provided a legacy that the hon. lady was obliged to deal with somewhat later.
The hon. gentleman talks about their being difference of view in the Liberal party. Of course there are differences of view in the Liberal party and we are not ashamed of those differences of view. However, there is no difference of view about this one basic fact namely that immigration is necessary for the healthy growth and development of this country. But you must have the two things proceeding hand in hand, namely the growth and the immigration.
A proper and well worked out immigration policy can contribute to growth. But if the growth does not take place, confidence is destroyed. If there is a depressed condition in the country it will be impossible, whatever immigration policy there is, to attract immigrants to the country because whatever one may or may not think desirable, immigrants seeking work are not going to come to a country in which there is not any work. I do not think anyone would argue

about that statement at all. Our view is that the sooner we get back to a government that knows how to administer this country and its finances, to restore order with regard to business and employment and to get back growth once more, the sooner we shall have healthy immigration. Until we do the one, we shall not have the other.


Mr. Cresiohl:: I have two questions to ask the minister. The figures indicate that since 1957 there has been a great decline in immigration into Canada. It will be of interest if the minister will offer some explanation as to why that decline in immigration took place since 1957.
The second question I should like to ask her is this. In speaking yesterday about the revision of the act she mentioned that she did not want to bring into the house a half baked instrument. I should like to ask the minister whether the result of her culinary art will be ready for serving to the house before the end of the present session.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, of course I cannot answer the second question. I have hopes. But with regard to the decline since 1957, of course my hon. friend will agree that 1957 was a most abnormal year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In many ways.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There was-as I think the hon. member for Fort William said-the largest influx since 1913. It was about twice as much as the average in the last 10 or 15 years. I claim no credit for the views which have been expressed by more than one economist to the effect that when you have a year in which you have a tremendous influx for one reason or another, you thereafter have a digestive process which goes on for a period of time. This is because, as is obvious, the motivation for the abnormal influx brought with it many immigrants who in the normal course of planning would have come in subsequent years, but for reasons which might be personal, which might be economic or otherwise, they accelerated their plans in order to take advantage of certain circumstances or avoid others and consequently came perhaps two or three years ahead of the time they had normally planned to come.
In the subsequent period, of course, those persons were already in Canada and the ones who were left formed the retinue of the group that had come originally in the boom year. That is the only explanation I can offer, other than that in the subsequent years of course, in so far as Europe is concerned, we all know that economic conditions were very bright,
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration other conditions were favourable, and people do not move away from what is to them a satisfactory condition.
Despite that we have had respectable numbers coming out to Canada. I do not lay claim to any great success in the matter of numbers. I will say that we have not encouraged people to come forward who had little chance of settling in Canada without difficulty. It would not be fair to them; it is not fair to the Canadians who are here.
I think the original explanation of the great influx resulting in a digestive process for two or three years is coupled with the economic condition of Europe and is quite likely the answer to the question.


Leon David Crestohl: Could the minister say
whether there were fewer applicants in those recent three years than there were before?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I would be safe in saying that is the case. There may be one or two countries where this does not apply and where the number of applications increased substantially, but with a couple of exceptions I would say yes, there were fewer applications.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the minister an opportunity, because I think it would be very helpful to have this on Hansard, to make a statement- not a lengthy statement, but a simple one -about the conditions under which students from other countries are allowed to attend Canadian universities. I think there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this subject and I think it would be helpful to many hon. members to have something authoritative on Hansard so that this matter could be dealt with.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I had anticipated some interest in this subject, but I do not seem to be able to lay my hand immediately on the notes I had. However, I think I can do very well from memory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have one or two other questions, if the minister would like to look for her notes in the meantime.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think I can answer the question. Apart from those schemes like the Colombo plan or some of these other scholarship schemes under the United Nations, the students who come forward to Canada are first of all, of course, required to be accepted by a university, a degree granting educational institution. If they are going to be here for more than a year they are required to submit to medical examination. They are also required to give evidence of their ability to pay their fees and maintain themselves
1946	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration while they are here without engaging in either full or part-time employment.
There has been some misunderstanding with reference to the seeking of employment by some of these students. If the employment which the student seeks is in line with his course of study, if it is something that contributes to the education which he is seeking, such as internship in the case of doctors, or possibly work in a library in the case of a person pursuing that type of course, and if that employment does not take a job away from a Canadian who is dependent upon it for his livelihood, then the student is granted permission to accept that employment.
This is far removed from the student who is possibly taking a pre-med course and goes out and takes a job driving a truck, thereby putting some truck driver out of a job. This is the type of thing we try to avoid. I hope I am making myself clear. If the employment is in line with his course of study, he is granted permission to take it.
However, we must come back to the original condition under which he came into the country, and that is that he had attested to the fact that he had sufficient funds to maintain himself and to pay his fees during the course of study.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are no restrictions on the travel of these students in Canada, are there? There were what turned out to be some quite erroneous stories to that effect. There are no other restrictions on the movement of students throughout Canada, are there?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is true; there are absolutely no restrictions. Of course, if a student comes here to attend the University of Manitoba and decides to quit his course there and go to McGill, we like to know where he is and we would ask him to report to us in that respect.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Who would go from the University of Manitoba to McGill?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Vice versa, then. Since I have agreement on both sides of the house I had better go along with it. But in so far as casual travel, holiday travel or any other kind of casual travel is concerned, there are no restrictions at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the minister received some time late in July, when I think most other members received a copy, a memorandum from the Japanese Canadian citizens association making certain representations respecting relatives of Japanese Canadians. Could the minister say what attention has been paid to these representations and whether any change has been made in the situation?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think there were 12 cases involved, if I am not mistaken. We have undertaken a complete review of them. Some of them have now been admitted; the others are under review.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I take it that in the case of the relatives of Japanese Canadian citizens, in the case of the categories of relatives who apply in that country, there is no other restriction of any kind; there is no restriction as to age?
There were certain cases that I am not very proud of, and I have never pretended to be, where Canadian citizens of Japanese origin renounced their citizenship in 1945 or 1946 and went back to Japan. Notwithstanding that fact there would be no bar today to their admission to Canada, if they were otherwise admissible, would there?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh no, there is not. I might say, harking back to this brief, the majority of these cases had never before been reported to the department. It was all news to us, and consequently we hurried the investigation. But I think in several of those cases it was just a matter of being known in the Japanese community and they had not made the proper application for consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has there been any thought given to the re-establishment of the gentleman's agreement or to the establishment of any quota or other arrangement of that kind for Japan? Perhaps I might take this opportunity to ask a related question on this subject. The minister will remember that the last time her estimates were before the committee there was some question of Japanese technicians going into Saskatchewan in connection with the establishment of an industry. Can the minister tell us if there has been any development in that field?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: With reference to the last question, this matter is still pending. We have had some discussion with the ambassador but the scheme has not yet come to fruition.
We have had no representations at all with reference to the other matter which the hon. member brought up, the reinstatement of these people. I would agree with what my hon. friend said last night that in so far as quotas are concerned I am not one who thinks they will solve the problem. I doubt very much whether any quota for Japan would solve any problem which exists there. However, we are on very friendly terms with these people and would give full consideration to any representations which might be made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, as I have said over and over again, I would not be in favour of any general quotas but I could

hardly agree that the gentleman's agreement did not for a long period of time meet a very real problem. I am not suggesting for one minute there is any reason we should take an initiative in this matter, if the Japanese government, or the Japanese themselves do not show any interest in the question.
But the minister is aware of the fact, and everyone is aware of the fact, that Japan is already our second largest customer for wheat, notwithstanding the spectacular exploit of the Minister of Agriculture the other day, and probably a more reliable market than the one the hon. gentleman found on that occasion, or at least we hope it is a more reliable market. It is a market which needs to be cultivated. Anyone who looks at the world situation in wheat today is bound to see that we should certainly look upon any new or expanding market with a jealous eye, and I think that any initiative we could reasonably take which would result in an orderly and progressive expansion of our commercial and other ties with Japan would be very valuable, looked at purely from the point of view of Canadian interest. I am sure that the hon. lady and her colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs would not be insensible to the importance and the political implications of maintaining the contact between Japan and the free world on the most harmonious basis possible.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I assure the hon. member that discussions are proceeding on a most amicable basis. What the ambassador is pursuing with us is not so much the question of immigration as the extension of nonimmigrant visas and schemes by which such extensions might be given.


Mr. Soulham:: We have a situation developing in my riding which could possibly exist in other boundary areas just adjacent to the United States. Quite a number of American friends, citizens of the United States, have been coming into Canada, bringing their agricultural implements with them, and leasing land and farms adjacent to the international boundary. I think this situation has developed in the last several years due to the agricultural policy being followed in the United States where certain regions have been classified as coming within the arrangements for the soil bank system. The operation of this system has left a good deal of spare time on the hands of American farmers who, it must be remembered, have a lot of money invested in machinery. As a result of the fact that they are not farming their own land they have come to Canada and have been leasing fairly large tracts of Canadian 90205-6-123
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration farm land. Sometimes they have even been bringing in American help with them.
I am wondering whether this situation has been brought to the minister's attention. I have had a number of inquiries about it but I have been unable to discuss the situation too intelligently because it is something which has developed only recently. I do know that there is a certain amount of concern in the minds of merchants and business people along the line because they find that our American friends stay here for only a short period of the year before going back across the line.
I am wondering whether any plan exists to encourage these people to come in, and possibly, to become permanent residents. We talk about the desirability of increasing our population, and this is a region where large tracts of land are available. It seems to me these people should be encouraged to become permanent residents rather than temporary visitors.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think that in his last sentence the hon. member has probably hit on the only aspect of the problem which would affect my department. I would not like to say whose responsibility the rest of the problem is, but it certainly does not affect this department in any way. As far as residence is concerned, I do not think we have the facilities to coerce these people in any way. Possibly the neighbours in the vicinity could do as much as anyone to welcome these people and suggest to them that they might become landed immigrants.


Leon David Crestohl: I want to ask a question which may be somewhat academic. I am addressing myself to section 20 of the act. In section 20 (a) (b) (c) the language says "a person who is a British subject by birth or naturalization". But in (d) the language merely refers to a person who is a subject of a country; it does not say "by birth or naturalization". Perhaps there is some reason for expressing the section in this way but I cannot understand what other form of British subject you could have other than by birth or naturalization. My point is this: why use both terms, and then only one term in subparagraph (d).


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid I cannot answer that. There is such a thing as registration. I do not like section 20, and I have said so before. This is one of the things we propose to deal with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could answer the question. As the hon. gentleman has said, in describing me before, I am the genius. Originally that section read "citizens by birth" and it was amended to read "birth
1948	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration or naturalization". The other section was never amended. This is purely historical. It was the quickest and shortest way to amend it, and until the hon. gentleman mentioned it, the rather idiotic aspect of it had never occurred to me. It would have been much easier to amend it by striking out "by birth". If the hon. gentleman had been my legal adviser, undoubtedly that is what would have been done.


Leon David Crestohl: I should like to thank the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for me to point out to the minister further emphatic reasons why the act needs revision at an early date.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have another inquiry or two to make of the minister before the vote carries. I have in my hand a clipping from the October 7, 1960 issue of the Vancouver Sun, a newspaper of which I am sure the minister is very fond. It shows a picture of three very handsome young men and says, "Yugoslavs Expect Punishment-Canada to Return Deserters". I am not going to read the whole article but the last paragraph states:
A spokesman for Empire Shipping Company, the agent which was asked to arrange deportation of the deserters, said the men would leave on the freighter Goranka.
There are two or three questions I should like to ask the minister about this. First of all I should like to ask if that great humanitarian, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, made any attempt to keep these deserters in Canada. Knowing what a great heart he has and how concerned he has been over people of this sort, I should be interested as a matter of history to know whether his interest in people of this kind subsists. If so, was any attention paid to the hon. member's representations?
The next and much more serious question I put to the minister is this. Were these young men deported and did the department check up to see whether they did in fact have any punishment inflicted on them as a result of the deportation, if it took place?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, we have no means of checking on their subsequent fate. Two of them were deported and the third one disappeared, as sometimes happens. He has not yet come to light but no doubt he will. I would have no way of knowing whether any representations had been made by a particular individual in a given case without looking at the files. I think that probably answers the hon. member.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady does too little honour to her colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. He is not the sort of person whose representations one forgets. However, I recognize the hon. lady's embarrassment-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am not embarrassed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and I will not press that point further.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not embarrass that easily.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am quite seriously concerned. As the hon. lady knows it was the practice in the department, and I hope it still is, not to deport people to countries where it was thought that they would meet with serious penalties as a result merely of desertion from a ship. I do not know whether that would now be the case in Yugoslavia. I can readily understand a deserter saying it would be and that that would not necessarily make it a fact, but I should not like to think that the department did not satisfy itself that that was highly unlikely to happen before a deportation took place.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We really were pretty well satisfied, Mr. Chairman. In fact, one of the young men was not at all reluctant to say he wanted to go back. I do not think they would meet with any serious punishment on their return to their homeland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have here a clipping from the Windsor Star. I suppose I really ought to apologize for bringing this up because it goes back to last July and I ought to have dealt with it when the estimates were before us the last time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is wonderful. This is the first one I have heard since 1959.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The first one from the Windsor Star since 1959?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, the first one that has been quoted from 1959 in this debate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must have mislaid my clippings for 1960. In any event, this has reference to a subject that was aired considerably in the last session of parliament when the question came up of delays at Quebec as a result of the examination of people at the new immigration building there as opposed to examinations on board ship. As I had a good deal to do with the decision to build the new immigration building in Quebec I should be quite interested to know just how it is working out, what the arrangements are and if all the difficulties about which I have heard nothing for a long time, have been cleared up?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: My hon. friend has heard nothing because there do not appear to be any difficulties.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I rather hoped.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We had, of course, a flurry of them at first, probably because it was a new arrangement, but when statistics were actually compiled it was found that less time was being taken by landing at Quebec. We have a system under which we examine returning residents on board and the others in the centre there. After a little while the irritation wore off and now we find things are operating quite smoothly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister last year was kind enough, in response to a motion which I undoubtedly could put on the order paper again, to table a copy of the occupational counselling guide. The one I have in my hand is for the period April 15 to May 15, 1960. I wonder if she would mind making available the latest copy of this document if it is still in use.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We have not used this particular form since last August. The current system is by way of memorandum outlining what the situation is in various parts of the country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. lady furnish a copy of the latest memorandum?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would have to inquire about this. It is a departmental document.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So was this.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It does not issue entirely from the department. However, I shall look into the matter. I would rather think the answer would be yes but I would not want to definitely commit myself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do hope the answer is yes because I should not like to think that this proliferation of secret documents of which some of the hon. lady's colleagues seem to be so fond has extended into her department in this particular field.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I might add that the reason for my reluctance in committing myself on this matter is that the document we are now using is not really a document of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration but emanates from the national employment service. One of the reasons why we discontinued the occupational counselling guide was that we were getting to the place where in many cases we were slightly out of step with the national employment service and now we are using their documents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That, of course, brings up a perennial question. I am sorry the hon.
90205-6-123i
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration member for Vancouver-Kingsway has temporarily left the chamber because I should like to ask him if, since he seems to be so much in agreement with the Canadian Labour Congress, the hon. member supports their view that the placement service of the immigration branch should be discontinued and transferred to the national employment service. I apologize to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I see that he is sitting on the other side of the chamber. I wanted to ask the hon. gentleman if, as a great exponent of the views of the Canadian Labour Congress, he also concurred with their view that the placement service of the immigration branch should be abolished and its work transferred to the national employment service.
I know that the minister touched on this subject briefly last night. I think myself that the placement problem must be very different from what it was two or three years ago as a result of the decline in the number of immigrants and in the proportion of immigrants who are actually seeking the kind of employment that the national employment service offers. I am wondering precisely what is the relationship at the present time and whether indeed there would be room here for some further integration from which at the time I considered it I did not see that there was anything substantial to be gained, because there was quite a great deal of difference between the kind of activities and the kind of approach to the activities of the two organizations.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Possibly I could enlarge a little on what I said last evening because I have here a copy of a letter which I had occasion to write in answer to this particular suggestion and perhaps I might take five minutes to read it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be helpful.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The letter reads in part as follows:
The suggestion is not new.
I pointed that out last night. I continue:
It has been put forward several times since the national employment service was established and it has been reviewed and discussed on various occasions.
Speaking historically, the department charged with the responsibility for immigration has always been responsible for the satisfactory establishment of immigrants in Canada, including their placement, as required. The immigration branch of this department is responsible for the implementation of government policy on immigration and the functions of the branch in this respect include: programming; recruiting, counselling; documentation; reception; distribution and placement; establishing the admissibility of immigrants; developing

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration settlement opportunities in rural areas as well as urban centres; and establishment of selfemployed persons.
Reception is one of the most important phases in the implementation of the Canadian immigration policy. A dissatisfied immigrant, in addition to the problems he may cause in Canada, may through his letters home frustrate our future immigration prospects. Successful immigrants are our most important recruiting factors.
Initial placement is an essential part of the reception of the imigrant who is in need of services which are not generally provided to other Canadian residents through a government agency, i.e., locating temporary accommodation, financial assistance while awaiting employment, arrangements with employers to make advances of salary to meet the migrant's initial needs, explanation of immigrants' background and training to employers, interpreter services, etc. It is important for the immigrants to know that they have a service of the government to turn to in time of need for they are not, like other residents in Canada, aware of the multiplicity of services made available, and it would create confusion, disappointment and hardship if upon arrival they had to consult with several of the agencies of governments in Canada.
One important aspect is that a significant portion of the immigrants come to Canada to establish themselves in small businesses or on farms. The immigration branch has a program of guidance and counselling for these cases. Such immigrants are placed in employment which will acquaint them with Canadian methods of operation, marketing and buying practices, before they embark on their own enterprises. These cases are followed up by the immigration officers at regular intervals, and at the appropriate time the immigrants are given the proper counselling which permits them to establish their own business or purchase their own farm. One important factor of this phase of the immigration program is the relation of friendship and trust between the immigrants and the immigration officers.
It is not the department's policy to accept responsibility for the placement of immigrants who have been in Canada for more than a year. However, officials of the national employment service have been informed that they may always, if they so wish, refer problem cases to the immigration branch. This department is also responsible to assist indigent immigrants until they are eligible for municipal and provincial welfare benefits up to a period of one year after their arrival in Canada. It seems normal therefore that the officers of the immigration branch should make the necessary effort to place those who are unemployed instead of providing them with financial assistance.
The question of duplication between the immigration branch and the national employment service and the possibility of financial saving was considered in 1955 by the treasury board on instructions of the then minister of finance. It was established that if the immigration branch were to cease to look after the initial placement of immigrants this would not result in any financial saving, as the immigration branch must retain its staff to carry out other essential immigration services. The conclusion was reached that this service was essential to the reception of the immigrants and should remain as a function of the immigration branch.
Notwithstanding the importance of the placement service of the immigration branch in the reception of immigrants, it remains a fact that they are encouraged wherever possible to use the facilities of the national employment service and this is a general practice followed by immigration

officers. In this connection the excellent co-operation received by the immigration branch from the national employment service must be acknowledged.
I think that describes the situation very-well in so far as the thinking of the department is concerned.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have just one last question of a general character although on one of the other items I may have other questions. Would the minister explain precisely what the legal situation was, what the practice and administrative situation were with respect to the admission of Chinese fiancees at the time the present government took office and what precisely is the nature of the change made since?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think I could answer that right now. I was not the first minister of this department after the change of government, and I am afraid I cannot even recall from memory precisely what the situation was when I became minister. I do know that we have abolished the bond-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Which was just a return ticket.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -which we formerly required. I do know also that we have brought in by authority of order in council a great many Chinese fiancees. I must admit, as I think my hon. friend would, that in some cases, having regard to the difference in the marriage laws of the two countries, we are reasonably certain that we are bringing in wives but that is a matter, of course, that is a little difficult to establish. However, we have pursued the most humanitarian attitude possible and have attempted to unite these young people whenever it is possible for us to do so. From time to time circumstances arise where there is some doubt as to the bona fides of the principals.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was merely concerned about the changes that had been made.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I could not set that out by chapter and verse from memory. I would have to investigate it because three or four years does things to one's memory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is true, of course, as I am sure the hon. lady will agree, that fiancees were admitted when the previous government was in office, that at that time they were required to have a return ticket in case the marriage did not take place and that a return ticket is now no longer required. That is a change that was made by the present government and I acknowledge it right away. I have not examined the regulations any more than the hon. lady has but my recollection is that when I was the minister these applications

were considered as a matter of grace, each one on its merit; that the regulations had not yet been changed to admit them under the regulations and that therefore each case had to be dealt with by order in council but that the present government had changed the regulations so that they were admissible as a category.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not true. The former situation still obtains.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The former situation still obtains. What I am really trying to get at is that I have a statement in my hands that one of the acts of the present Progressive Conservative government at Ottawa was to modify the regulation respecting the admission of fiancees who are now permitted entry as non-immigrants and granted permanent status when marriage takes place. That statement is obviously in error.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would not say it is in error. What it refers to, of course, is the abolition of the bond.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not say a word about that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is perhaps a misinterpretation. I would not say it is completely in error.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At any rate, the hon. lady does agree that these fiancees were admitted as non-immigrants before the present government came in and that when they married they were given permanent status.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes:


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
S3. Field and inspectional service, abroad, $2,298,599.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it would be helpful if the hon. lady could give us the total staff in each of the offices abroad and the number of immigrants admitted through each such office in 1960.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think we would have that information yet. It is only a month since the end of the year. I would be very glad to procure it for my hon. friend at the first opportunity. I will see what we have here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Up to whatever might be the latest available date?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not think we have the information in the form in which my hon. friend requires it, but I would be glad to get it for him. I should draw this to his attention or to his memory. You cannot always judge the production of an office by the number of immigrants who are admitted
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration because in some of the offices there are a great many interviews that never result in immigration at all. They are casual inquiries. A person may be inadmissible for reasons of health, and he may come back several times before being finally passed by the health officer. However, I will procure the information for my hon. friend.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do have the impression that this may be one area in which there could be a considerable saving. I have no doubt this will be looked into by the investigating commission. I know that I did close one or two offices, and then subsequently opened them again when there was an increased interest in immigration. There are certainly one or two countries to my knowledge at the present time where we had offices the last time I checked-they may have been closed since-and where it struck me that the game was not worth the candle any longer. After all, in practically all of these places where we have offices, except one or two countries in which there is large scale immigration like the United Kingdom, the only office is in the capital of the country and we have a diplomatic mission there.
Notwithstanding the fact that I was once a third secretary in external affairs myself I am not convinced that the junior staff are so overworked that if there were an occasional inquiry about immigration they could not handle it, just as they do in some countries in South America. I agreed with the hon. lady's answer to the more general inquiry of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam because there is no doubt that the border crossings go on, and they go on in increasing volume every year. The bulk of the staff of the immigration branch is in Canada and does not deal with immigrants at all but with visitors and Canadians. These officers abroad are largely for immigrants.
I am not sure that it would not be possible, as a result of a really careful review, to use these officials somewhere else and allow the diplomatic staff to do the job, perhaps with an occasional visit from an immigration officer to deal with the difficult cases. It is hardly reasonable to maintain an office with four or five people, and all the other attendant expenses, and get 30 or 40 immigrants from that country during a whole year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
54. Trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers, subject to the approval of treasury board including care en route and while awaiting employment: and payments to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $2,100,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister just explain precisely what is contained in this vote now? This was the vote under which we made provision, of course, for the very considerable expenses in connection with the movement of Hungarian refugees a few years ago.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course, one of the
things taken care of under this vote is family assistance and assisted passage payment of transportation for immigrants and settlers who require it from a provisional destination in Canada to another locale where employment is available; for the absorption of the differential in the cost of rail transportation from Winnipeg to points west of Winnipeg; a survey of potential areas for farm settlement in connection with provincial government land settlement schemes. There is a long list of these things, but I think that is a general description. It does not include assisted passage, but it does include these other items.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does not include assisted passage?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, that is from the revolving fund.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is perhaps the only place where we can properly ask a question about the state of the revolving fund. I think it would be desirable if the latest totals were put on the record so that we can see how this is working. Can the minister tell us at the same time whether it is still the practice to give an assisted passage loan to dependents as well as to wage earners?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. My officials do not have the figures here, but again I would be glad to procure them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no hurry about that. At the same time I would be very much interested in knowing whether it is still necessary to give assisted passage to settlers as opposed to immigrants and how many such cases there have been in the last three years. I do not know whether the hon. lady has really ever encountered that problem. Settlers are Canadian citizens.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As indicated in the description of vote 54 which I read, we use these funds for taking settlers to different parts of Canada to explore the possibilities, and so on. In so far as assisted passage is concerned, I will see if we have that information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. lady understands what a settler is from the point of view of assisted passage? It is a Canadian citizen who cannot qualify as an immigrant. We had to change the law a few years ago to put in the

word "settler" so we could assist Canadian citizens. This is not a very important matter financially, but it is a matter of some interest.
I wonder if the hon. lady could tell us-it is probably in the annual report-how many persons are in receipt of family assistance at the present time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In so far as settlers are concerned, we do not have any figures as distinct from immigrants. There are approximately 27,000, in reply to the other question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is 27,000 children?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This would mean there are
27,000	children who have not been in Canada a year?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That would be right.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if the minister could tell us how much the allowances are that are granted, and how they compare with the level of social welfare allowances being granted in the different parts of Canada to Canadians who happen to have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and have to live on welfare. How does an immigrant qualify?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am informed that the amounts are based on the provincial assistance rates and they vary from province to province according to the variations in the amounts stipulated by the provincial authorities.


Harold Edward Winch: Could we ask for an explanation as to how an immigrant who has not got employment qualifies for this assistance? I know I have read in the newspapers time after time, and I have had cases come to my attention, which indicate if you happen to come from a certain European country or come in a certain year, then you can get assistance. If you happen to come from the United Kingdom, then you have to get on your way back home. I understand the hon. member for Kootenay West has knowledge of cases like this, too.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is news to me. If my hon. friends want to give me chapter and verse I shall have the matter investigated. It may be that the individuals concerned did not make the proper application to the department or it may be that they had been in Canada for more than a year. We only assume responsibility up to one year. There certainly is no difference in so far as the United Kingdom immigrants are concerned and those from any other country.


Erhart Regier: I hope the minister was adequately advised when she intimated that the level of the assistance granted is identical

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
with that which happens to prevail with regard to social welfare cases within any particular province. This situation leads to some grave misunderstanding in Canada if an immigrant is in receipt of a higher level of what is in effect assistance of a welfare nature than is the local resident who may well be a taxpayer in the municipality. I hope the minister was accurate. In any event, I hope that she will ensure that in no case will this assistance exceed the assistance which will be available to Canadians who may be on our welfare rolls at the present time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is no such intention. As a matter of fact, wherever possible we try to get the provincial authorities to assume responsibility for the dispensation of welfare benefits and then be reimbursed in turn from our department. We have not always been able to do that. The same thing applies with regard to unemployment assistance.


Erhart Regier: As the minister has adopted a completely adequate approach to this matter, all I can say is that I hope her wishes are going to be implemented in all areas of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Following up the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East with regard to immigrants from the United Kingdom, may I say this. On one occasion I had come to me an immigrant from the United Kingdom who had been a major in the Life Guards, who came to this country, served in the second world war and, through some unfortunate circumstance had some extremely heavy expenses. I personally went with him to see the minister's officer. He said, "We do not expect immigrants from the United Kingdom to ask for assistance, they are expected to have enough stability and so on to stand on their own feet". I was present when that was said. I will supply the minister with the full details.
As a matter of fact, this immigrant was a senior official in the immigration service of Great Britain when he came to this country and he had recommendations of the highest kind from the colonel of his regiment and from the British ministry that had charge of the department for which he worked. That is one particular instance of which I have knowledge. It took place some year or two ago. I have had the matter brought to my attention a number of times by a number of immigrants.
This is the only case of which I can speak from personal experience because I went to the immigrant concerned. As a consequence, he was able to borrow sufficient funds from Great Britain and returned to
Great Britain. He was a man of excellent education, and had given excellent service to the commonwealth and had fought for the things we believe in. However, he was obliged to return to Great Britain because he was denied two or three months assistance to tide him over a rocky period after he had suffered a series of most unfortunate experiences. I bring that matter to the minister's attention. I will look up the file and give her the details. If my memory serves me correctly, this incident took place during the administration of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is news to me. If the hon. member will supply us with the chapter and verse of his complaint I shall be glad to look into it. Do I understand him to imply that the gentleman in question had been here less than a year?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: He had been here about six months; and he arrived here at a period when things went flat all of a sudden.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the hon. member will give me the particulars I will look into the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If in fact this incident occurred when I was minister I might ask the hon. member if he will give me the information also because I should be glad to have it. I ran into one or two cases in which people thought they had been badly treated by the citizenship and immigration officers. I always tried to investigate those cases. I was on very good terms with the hon. gentleman at that time. If he had brought the matter to my attention, I am sure that I would have looked at it then.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I shall be only too glad to give the information to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate as well. I think it was just in this period of flux when this catastrophe happened in 1957 and on that account I did not bring the matter to the minister's attention, because the gentleman to whom I am referring had returned to Britain and has asked me not to press him any further. I am not blaming the former minister, but I know that on several occasions immigrants from Great Britain came to me and said that they were discouraged from seeking assistance by the officers concerned.


Erhart Regier: Since we are speaking of the subject of assistance while awaiting employment may I ask the minister this question. Are there any communications between the immigration branch or the minister and the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration regional offices of the unemployment insurance commission with regard to replacement of immigrants in Canada.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think that matter was explained in the letter which I read within the last hour having regard to the placement service of the department.


Erhart Regier: Did this information have anything specifically to do with the category of immigrants known as displaced persons? Was there any communication with the unemployment insurance offices in which specific mention was made of displaced persons.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It has been so long since we have had a category definitely known as displaced persons that I really could not answer that question. It is not a term that
is in common use today in the department.


Erhart Regier: If the minister will not identify what I mean, I imagine that her officers will do so. I have had representations from three ratepayers organizations and from a political organization in the area. They are greatly concerned about a charge that has been levelled at a local regional office of the unemployment insurance commission. An unemployed man asserts that he read the letter that was handed to him, although not for keeping-he was obliged to return it-in which it was stated that a federal department had issued orders to this regional office to grant preference to displaced persons in the matter of recommending places of employment. Is the minister able to deny that any letter of that kind emanated out of the immigration department.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am entirely unaware of it. I am told the term "displaced person" has not been used in this department for five years. I am therefore quite certain that no such letter would have been written along those lines certainly within the last few years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one other question I should like to ask the minister. Can she say how many provincial governments she has been able to make this agreement with or how many provincial governments agreements have been made to provide welfare services and whether there is any prospect of making any further agreement? Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to say that I heartily approve of this policy since I initiated it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: To date we have three, namely Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta. We are working on the rest of them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Citizenship-
48. Citizenship registration branch, $845,871.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make one or two observations about this item. The citizenship registration branch is, of course, concerned with persons who have come here as immigrants in main, although not all of them are in that category; some are returning Canadians who want to have their citizenship restored. Except in one respect it is largely simply a great registry in the department here in Ottawa. But since 1954 or 1955- I ought to remember the year but I am not quite sure of it-the department has set up a number of citizenship courts in various parts of the country because we found that there were such concentrations when I was in office-and the minister has found this situation also-in a number of places, such concentrations of potential citizens in certain places that the local county courts or their equivalent in the other provinces could not handle the volume of traffic. I think it would be interesting to have for the last two years the global figures of the number of persons who have become citizens in each of these areas, and any other observations the minister would like to make about this situation; that is, whether there are any other places where there is a backlog.
One thing that always interested me when I was minister was that I managed to make a reasonable profit for the treasury on the operations in Toronto, and even in Montreal. I wonder whether the minister, being an accountant, has a balance sheet for all the courts and can say whether the fee is sufficient to pay the full cost of these courts.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Most of these courts have not been in operation long enough for us to have decided that. I might also say that the primary purpose for the establishment of the courts, in so far as I am concerned, is to have uniform treatment rather than making money. It stands to reason that we do not intend to open courts in areas where traffic does not warrant it. However, I do have a small statement here and possibly it will answer some of the questions I have been asked.
During the calendar year 1960 courts of Canadian citizenship were opened in London, Ontario; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Edmonton, Alberta and Vancouver, British Columbia. In addition we have in this current calendar year appointed a court of Canadian citizenship in Moncton, New Brunswick. This brings to eight the number of courts of Canadian citizenship now in operation. I might also add that it is hoped to open a court of Canadian citizenship in Ottawa later this year. It is also planned to hold a meeting of

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
the presiding officers of these courts in the near future to help them to arrive at a more uniform system in dealing with applicants for Canadian citizenship.
To date the complete statistical returns on the granting of certificates of Canadian citizenship are not available. However, it appears that there will be a slight decrease from last year in the number of persons who have applied for and been granted Canadian citizenship. Information available for the first three quarters of 1960 shows that 46,000 persons were granted Canadian citizenship compared with 49,000 for the same period in 1959.
During these same periods the number of certificates of Canadian citizenship and miniature certificates of Canadian citizenship issued to persons who are already Canadian citizens has decreased from 32,381 in the first three quarters of 1959 to 31,542 in the first three quarters of 1960. Of course, that is not much of a decrease. The issue of the miniature certificates of Canadian citizenship continued to be the more popular during 1960.
The total revenue from all sources for the branch for the calendar year 1960 amounts to $327,623. This is mainly from the operations of the courts of Canadian citizenship.
To answer my hon. friend's question, in 1960 the court in Toronto had 9,686 applications; Montreal had 5,871; Hamilton had 1,995; London, which was only opened May 1, had 453; Moncton of course has just opened; Winnipeg, which opened on October 3, had 288; Edmonton, opened October 18, had 205; and Vancouver, which opened August 15, had 798. So I think it will be another year or so before we can really properly assess the traffic and the expenses of the courts. But I am sure that with the amount of money that has come in during the past year we certainly will not be operating at a loss. For 1961-62 we forecast about $427,500 altogether.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, reverting to the claim of the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate as to a profit made on these courts when he was minister, does the minister, who is an accountant, know whether in fact the claim of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who is not an accountant, is valid?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I did not audit his accounts, but I would be willing to attest to the fact that in so far as the records of the department show, he is quite correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one problem that the minister knows has been quite troublesome. There is a great incentive, of course, for persons of foreign nationality to seek to become Canadian citizens because that is the 90205-6-124
way in which they get the franchise in this country. But British subjects who emigrate to Canada have only to be here a year and they get the franchise without becoming Canadian citizens. Therefore they-at least, I say "therefore"; I am not imputing motives to anyone in the house-presumably have less incentive to seek citizenship than persons of foreign nationality. In fact, the records did show up until the last time I checked them that these British subjects did not become Canadian citizens in quite the same number. Has there been any improvement in that respect in the past year?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I could not really say there has been. I wish I could report that there had been an improvement, because I think these people should become Canadian citizens. But apart from encouraging them whenever we run into them, I do not think there is very much else we can do. I have just been reminded of something that I should have mentioned. In the current year we are producing a film which we hope will be some encouragement to them.


Harold Edward Winch: I can understand the viewpoint of the minister in wishing to encourage uniformity and perhaps a standard ceremony in the application or the granting of papers of citizenship. However, I would like to ask the minister whether any thought has been given to a rather serious aspect on the other side of the picture. I have reference to people who have been here the required five years and who have made the required application, but who come from a country whereby almost by nature they have a temperament of being high-strung, emotional and excitable.
From my own personal experience I know people who have been good citizens and in my estimation they are entitled to citizenship. On many occasions I had visited them in their homes. I can sit down and talk to them and they can talk to me. I understand them; they understand me. I have actually sponsored some of these people. But immediately they get in the courtroom, with the judge up on the bench and the spectators all around, they freeze. Their mind goes blank; they are back to the language and the customs of the country from which they came.
Although I have been speaking to them for perhaps two years in English, right then and there they do not know English; they cannot understand it; they cannot speak it. I have seen that happen. I know it happened only recently in Vancouver. I know of cases in the interior of exactly the same thing. As a matter of fact I drew one to the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration attention of the deputy minister and he was very, very kind about it. This does happen.
Is consideration given to that situation, to this emotionalism and blankness which under those circumstances overcomes these people? I think we know it. I think the majority of us, if we have to face even a traffic charge, have a feeling of nervousness when we go before the judge. Therefore I think it is understandable and I think it is important that something be done to help these people.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is, of course, a recognized human failing. This is one of the reasons we want to have these courts wherever possible, because we can speak to our own presiding officers; we can draw these matters to their attention and plead for their tolerance and understanding.
If the applicant comes before the county court judge-I make no aspersions on his motives-it is true that we cannot speak to that judge because we have no jurisdiction whatsoever over him. I may say, however, that the applicant is not judged entirely on what happens to him in court. We do have a pre-examination and I think it has been our experience in our own courts that by the time the applicant comes to court he has had such friendly relationships with the staff of the court and has received such kindness from them that to some extent he loses his fear. We hope he loses all his fear. It stands to reason he is going to be excited. His enunciation in repeating the oath may not be as clear as we would expect of a Canadian but I am sure we are gradually overcoming these difficulties and we hope we shall overcome them completely.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It did seem to me strange, having in mind the number of immigrants and the population of various places, that Calgary should not have been included in that list.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We have a court in Edmonton. I am not sure what we are going to do, but we did not consider there was sufficient traffic to make it worth while having one court in Edmonton and another in Calgary. In some of these places we have in mind making a travelling court out of the existing court. Courts will be held at intervals in different places in the same area.


Mr. Brunsden:: I should like to emphasize the point made by my colleague the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. There is a great deal of confusion in Alberta with respect to this court in Edmonton. There is a feeling it is a temporary court. There is a feeling that someone from Medicine Hat might have to go to Edmonton to appear

before it, and I suggest to the hon. lady, whom we all admire, that it might be well to clear up this situation.
I have another question to raise and it has to do with refusal to grant citizenship. I am thinking at the moment of one individual of central European birth who has a European name. He has applied continually for citizenship and his application has been approved by the district court, but when his file comes to Ottawa he has been refused. I have been told by the registrar that the reason for refusal is a secret. I feel that as a member of parliament I am entitled to some confidence. I am not going to betray it. But on behalf of this man's sponsors and on behalf of the court in Medicine Hat who are most interested in this man I should like to know why he should continually apply, continually pay a $10 fee and continually be refused. It seems to me that that is not Canadian. If the man has some mark against him, should not some of us know what that mark is?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There are some aspects of this type of case which cannot be divulged but if my hon. friend would like to bring his specific case before me I should be very glad to have a look at it and I will tell him what I can tell him, in any event.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Can the minister give the approximate date when the citizenship court will be established in Ottawa, and will she indicate the field of its jurisdiction? Over what other counties in eastern Ontario would it have jurisdiction in addition to the historic county of Carleton?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid I shall have to leave that question for the time being because it has several facets. We have an allotment for it in next year's estimates so I hope we shall get it open during the current calendar year.


Mr. Baldwin:: I should like to express appreciation to the minister and to the officials of her department for what they have done in connection with the appointment of what I might term ad hoc judges in districts far removed from places where the courts usually sit. That has happened in the area of Fort Vermilion which is some 300 miles from Peace River where the nearest district court holds regular sittings. The arrangement has proved of great value. Frequently during the summer and fall when rivers cannot be crossed it is impossible to get down to these courts other than by air. The practice has proved very useful and I hope it will be increasingly followed.
I believe the minister advised me in her last letter that a member of the R.C.M.P.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
had been appointed there. That is all very well. I think they are an admirable body although I have had my differences with them professionally at various times. But they are frequently moved. Sometimes a constable is appointed to be an ad hoc judge. Then, he is moved and there is a vacancy. I would suggest that thought be given to making appointments of a more permanent nature; to choosing someone who is residing in the area for some time.
I should like to take this opportunity to make some reference to the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver East. I have appeared before the courts at different times for a quarter of a century. During that time in district courts I have heard many judges dealing with the applications of those who wish to become citizens of this country and I do not think I have come across one occasion in all that period when the judge concerned has not been sympathetic, courteous and considerate, careful to see that he has put these people at their ease. I am confident that the new courts and the judges appointed by the minister will continue that practice.


Hubert Badanai: Following the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East with regard to applicants for citizenship, may I say that when they appear before the judge they usually get tongue-tied in answering questions. I have here in my hand a questionnaire with 41 questions on it which the judge asks the applicants in court. Needless to say, some of these questions are difficult even for Canadians to answer. I will read one or two as examples.
One question reads: What written document is the basis of the constitution of Canada? Another is: What is the name of the most recent act of parliament affecting our constitution? Another question is: Why is the Statute of Westminster important?


Harold Edward Winch: How many school children, or even adult, could answer those?


Hubert Badanai: Some of those questions are difficult for even Canadians to answer, let alone for these people who appear before a judge with a meagre knowledge of English. They become tongue-tied, unable to say a word, and are turned down. Once they are turned down they are asked to file another application within two years. That is accompanied by a request for another fee of $5. A situation of this kind is surely to be regretted, and some reasonable attitude should be taken by the judges when they examine these people. I have had several cases in my constituency; in fact they come up after every citizenship court. People come to me and say they could not get citizenship papers. They 90205-6-1241
got tongue-tied in court; yet they can speak to me, in broken English, it may be, but I can understand them very well.
Then there is the case of the man who may have lived in Canada for 20 years and who will never acquire a substantial knowledge of the English language. Yet he is a good citizen and has probably raised a family. He, and others like him, are unable to obtain citizenship papers simply because they cannot answer the questions which are asked of him.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, these questions do not emanate from this department. This must have been a list of questions compiled by the judge himself. In any event, I should inform the hon. member for Fort William that we do have text books which are made available to all applicants for citizenship. These text books answer most of these questions and certainly the ones the hon. member read off.
We think it is advisable that applicants for citizenship should know a little about the country. I agree with him that possibly some of our own Canadian citizens do not know this either but after all they were born here and were supposedly educated in this country and have probably forgotten much of what they learned in school as is the case with all of us.
With respect to long term residents and a lack of knowledge of the language, there is usually some leniency exercised by the judges in the cases of persons who have been here an extended length of time and who have not had an opportunity of learning one of Canada's two basic languages. I think of persons who have been here 20 years and who demonstrate that by reason of circumstances they have been unable to take language courses or to mingle with their neighbours to the extent of having acquired fluency in English or French. Such persons are usually given special treatment by the judge of the court.
Perhaps I may be permitted to relate to the committee an amusing incident that came to my own attention. A young lady of my acquaintance was taking a language course. She came to me with a book which I must admit was a product of my own department. She asked me what is a very small animal with six legs. I said I did not know. She was able to show me the question in the book: What is a very small animal with six legs? We got out the encyclopedia, the dictionary and some books on animals that I have, but we were unable to find an answer to the question.
With great glee I brought the question to my departmental officials and they were as much in the dark as I was. I believe the

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration answer turned out to be an ant. I am sure none of the hon. members of this committee would consider an ant an animal but apparently in strict terms it is. However, if none of us could answer that question I am sure we can have every sympathy when a question of this nature is put to a person who is attempting to learn the English language.
The other side of that matter, of course, is that there was a book of instructions from which she could have secured the necessary information but in directing her studies the teacher had neglected to give her the book of instructions and had given her only the book containing the questions.


Hubert Badanai: I agree that there are books of instructions, Mr. Chairman, but often when these people appear before the judge, even though they know the answers to the questions, they cannot talk, become mute and are turned down. That is the difficulty. I wonder if the minister could instruct, advise, or suggest to the judges concerned that they use a little discretion in the matter.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In February we are having our own presiding officers in and will be making some of these suggestions to them. I am sorry to inform the hon. member, that we cannot make suggestions to county court judges.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know what the procedures are now when an applicant appears before a judge and has to answer possibly 48 questions. I can recall my own application for citizenship. Although there were 48 questions I am happy to say that we were supplied with 48 answers too.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
49. Citizenship branch, $808,322.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, because it is only a few minutes before five o'clock, perhaps I may be permitted to make a statement on this subject so that we could start next day from this point.
As I presented an outline of the continuing activities of the citizenship branch only eight months ago, I shall confine my remarks today to reporting on a few significant developments that have occurred since that time.
First of all, I should like to speak of language classes. Special language classes for newly landed immigrants, who would otherwise have to await the opening of the fall term, were made available in the summer in an increased number of centres. Notably popular and successful this year were the

classes organized for the first time in Winnipeg. In Toronto a publicity campaign conducted through spot announcements on radio in a variety of languages produced most gratifying results. Nearly 1,000 students enrolled in an intensive six-week course involving five evenings each week.
In the field of teacher training, a total of 45 teachers of immigrants attended the special summer course conducted by the Ontario department of education during July and August. At the instigation of the citizenship branch, arrangements were made between provincial governments for the first time to permit the attendance of nine supervisors and senior teachers from outside Ontario. The course, which is intended to improve the standards of instruction in language classes, is now well established and will be expanded somewhat this summer.
With the assistance of the branch, initial steps are now being taken to provide special courses for teachers of French to immigrants. The first of such courses will be held in Montreal the latter part of February.
A meeting is being planned by the branch for this summer of leading experts from the various provinces in the field of language and citizenship instruction for immigrants. The meeting will provide the first opportunity for such experts to exchange views and experiences and to discuss problems of mutual interest.
Increased efforts have also been made by the branch to promote the filing of citizenship applications by those eligible to do so. A series of advertisements have been run in the ethnic press. A poster on this subject was also prepared and, with the co-operation of the Post Office Department, displayed in all post offices throughout the country. Articles on the steps to citizenship and the advantages of acquiring citizenship were prepared for the use of ethnic newspapers across Canada.
In order to reach as many people as possible of those newcomers who, although eligible, have delayed in applying for Canadian citizenship, a film on the subject is now in process. It is intended for use with ethnic groups and voluntary organizations working with newcomers. The film will outline the factors involved in reaching such an important decision as changing allegiance, as well as the main court procedures.
At present, plans are being completed for a revised booklet to assist applicants for citizenship in preparing themselves for examination before the courts. It is anticipated that the new booklet will assist applicants and the courts, in achieving and maintaining a desirable standard in respect of citizenship examinations.

I would like to refer also to the work of the citizenship branch in the promotion of citizenship activities among Canadians generally. Last summer the branch concentrated its efforts on the organization of impressive and colourful Dominion day celebrations in a few major centres. I mention only two. Through the united efforts of civic government, business and industry, voluntary and ethnic organizations, Winnipeg had a most distinctive and successful program. In Ottawa events centred around parliament hill. Members will recall the trooping of the colour, the special carillon recitals, the sunset ceremony and the very moving citizenship ceremony over which I had the honour to preside. This year, along with the more formal observances, the branch is encouraging broader community participation in the Dominion day festivities, in gradual preparation for the celebrations that will take place during centennial year.
Two significant events with which the branch has been closely associated recently were a national Y.M.C.A. conference of young adults who met last summer to discuss the role of responsible Canadian citizenship in the next decade, and a conference sponsored by the home and school associations for community leaders in New Brunswick on the conditions of bicultural co-operation in the region.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



COMPANIES ACT


Ernest James Broome: the second reading of Bill No. C-16, to amend the Companies Act (financial statements).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Companies Act so that if the foreign parent of a Canadian subsidiary is deemed to be under Canadian law a public company the Canadian subsidiary must also be classed as a public company. There are now 11 Canadian companies acts, one federal and ten provincial. Canadian law does not require private companies to publish financial statements and, among other things, a private company is one which has less than 50 shareholders. Public companies are required by the federal act to publish annual statements of income, expenditures, profit or loss, debts, assets, inventories and surpluses. On the other
Private Bills
hand, a wholly owned subsidiary of any company, whether foreign or Canadian, is considered under the law to be a single corporate person and therefore can qualify as a private company and will not have to make its financial statements public.
It can be argued with reason that the right granted to private companies to keep their financial affairs safe from public scrutiny was intended as a guarantee of privacy for natural, not corporate, persons. Wholly owned subsidiaries are ultimately owned by the shareholders of the parent company; if there are more than 50 shareholders of the parent company then it can be argued that there are more than 50 shareholders of the subsidiary. It would therefore be in the spirit of the law to require wholly owned subsidiaries to submit separate financial statements both to the Secretary of State and to their parent corporation. It is my contention that this is the spirit of the law but that the letter of the law does not say this.
The amendment proposed in the bill will, of course, only affect companies incorporated by an act of parliament, but if this parliament gives a lead in this direction I think the provincial acts will be changed accordingly in due course. These provincial acts are not exactly similar to the federal act but generally speaking they make the same distinction between private and public companies.
The Canadian-American committee sponsored by the national planning association of the United States and the private planning association of Canada has recently published a booklet entitled "Policies and Practices of United States Subsidiaries in Canada" written by John Lindeman and Donald Armstrong. Mr. John Lindeman has wide experience in the field of international economic affairs with the United States government and as a private economic consultant. He is the author of earlier studies on United States business performance abroad published by the national planning association, and he is currently a partner in International Economic Consultants, Incorporated, in Washington. Professor Armstrong has had broad experience as an economic consultant in Canada and has recently been appointed director of the school of commerce at McGill University in Montreal.
The Canadian-American committee was established in 1957 to study problems arising from the growing interdependence between Canada and the United States. It has approximately equal representation from coast to coast. Its 60 members are business, labour, agricultural and professional leaders drawn in equal numbers from the United States and Canada. The committee was founded to foster

Private Bills
good relations between Canada and the United States and to study any problems which are in the common interests of both countries.
The booklet deals with the sale of equity stock in subsidiaries to Canadians, the use of Canadian personnel in these subsidiaries, how well or how badly such subsidiaries contribute to charity and education, and one chapter deals with the subject of the bill, that is, the publication of financial data of such subsidiaries. On page 46 the authors state as follows:
Complaints have come from financial, academic and professional sources that the failure of so many foreign owned companies to publish financial data imposes a factual blackout for them over much of the economy, and thus inhibits research. An analyst examining a problem of the concentration of industry, for example, will have much more difficulty studying the problem in Canada than would a student of the same problem in the United States or England. Even civil servants do not always have access to the financial data of individual companies. An economist in the Department of Trade and Commerce or in the Bank of Canada, who might be trying to assess the significance of a sample survey made of a particular industry, would have access to no more individual financial company data than would anyone else. Under existing rules, the information made available to the income tax division or the dominion bureau of statistics is not generally available to any other government department on an individual company basis. Market analysts report difficulty in trying to assess the future of an industry or of the individual companies that do sell shares, since in some cases they lack sufficient data for comparing companies and have no way of putting together financial statistics for an industry as a whole.
These complaints, Mr. Speaker, are quite legitimate when you consider the degree of ownership and control of Canadian industry exercised by foreign corporations. As far as control is concerned, according to the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects 95 per cent of our automobile industry, 84 per cent of our rubber industry, 51 per cent of our chemical industry, 68 per cent of our petroleum industry and 55 per cent of our mining industry are controlled by United States capital alone. In the booklet I have referred to previously this statement is made:
Today well over one quarter of all industry in Canada is controlled in the United States. In manufacturing the proportion is approximately one half, and in the primary mineral resource industries -mining, smelting and petroleum-United States ownership is close to two thirds of the total. These are dramatic figures.
No other industrialized country has such a large share of its industry controlled by concerns beyond its border. By comparison foreign investment in the United States reached a peak before world war I but it only amounted to the equivalent of 15 per cent of the United States gross national product. As of today, foreign investment in the United States is down to 3 per cent of

the gross national product. On the other hand, foreign investment in Canada is now almost 61 per cent of the Canadian gross national product.
It almost seems fantastic, Mr. Speaker, that in so many areas of government legislation the cards have been stacked against companies which are either wholly Canadian or have Canadian participation. For example, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) in his recent budget has corrected the situation which gave a tax advantage to foreign companies which would not permit any Canadian participation, and penalized foreign subsidiaries which did allow Canadian participation. The budget has eliminated this advantage and removed one barrier to further Canadian participation in these foreign owned subsidiaries.
This bill attempts to amend the Companies Act so that wholly owned subsidiaries of foreign companies will not be able to operate in secrecy but will have to publish the same financial information required of Canadian companies, and the same information which is required of foreign subsidiaries which have some Canadian participation. For instance, the royal commission on price spreads in food products, in its report dated September, 1959, page 52, recommended that private companies be required by law to publish the same information as public companies of their financial operations. The commission stated that information on the operation of the Canadian economy is necessary to the proper conduct of public affairs. They felt that if this information were available it would be a corrective to some of the abuses they found in the food industry. The royal commission on Canada's economic prospects in their final report at page 393, made the following recommendations:
(1)	wherever possible, such concerns should employ Canadians in senior management and technical positions,-
They are here referring to foreign owned subsidiaries.
-should retain Canadian engineering and other professional and service personnel, and should do their purchasing of supplies, materials and equipment in this country;
(2)	they should publish their financial statements and make full disclosure of the results of their Canadian operations;
(3)	they should include on their boards of directors a number of independent Canadians and they should sell an appreciable interest in their equity stock to Canadians.
The subject matter of another bill which I will be introducing, Mr. Speaker, will deal with the question of Canadian participation on the boards of directors of the companies. It is of note that the second recommendation of this royal commision is in line with the purpose of this bill.

It is interesting to note also that in the United Kingdom wholly owned subsidiaries are required by law to publish financial statements. Vauxhall, which is a General Motors subsidiary in the United Kingdom, regularly publishes complete details of its financial operations. According to the press there has been over the past five years a major flow of United States capital into the United Kingdom in order to build branch plants to service that market. It would seem, therefore, that foreign capital is not too concerned about this requirement, but is quite willing to take advantage of the fact there is no requirement so long as we are willing to give this advantage.
In the Canadian-American booklet to which I referred before I find that the authors interviewed some 150 officials of United States parent companies with subsidiaries in Canada and the operations of more than 50 United States companies operating in Canada. They state that most of the professional and governmental officials interviewed in Canada were firmly convinced that wholly owned subsidiaries should publish these financial statements. On the basis of these interviews they found that the management of most of the wholly owned United States subsidiaries in Canada had no strong opposition to the publication of the financial data in the detail now required of public companies. Incidentally it is well to note here that the data required under Canadian law is neither as extensive nor as detailed as that required under United States law, and which is furnished by the parent corporations of these same subsidiaries. The authors have come to the conclusion that the reason more of these wholly owned subsidiaries do not publish statements must be attributed more to inertia than any strong desire to keep their financial results away from public scrutiny. If this is so, then only through government legislation can we bring about this result.
In the Ottawa Journal of January 18 there was an interesting editorial referring to a speech made by Mr. Kennedy when he was given an honorary degree by the University of New Brunswick. In speaking about Canada-United States relations, Mr. Kennedy said:
It would be a pity to rigidify the Canadian economy merely for the sake of breaking lances with a phantom American colonialism. In return, American businessmen with substantial investments in Canada should be required by the dictates of self-preservation, if not simple equity, to increase the participation of Canadian money and personnel in the development of Canadian resources.
I would suggest, in the light of that statement, that Mr. Kennedy would be in agreement with the principle of this bill.
This bill was introduced for the first time in 1959 and was debated in this house. The
Private Bills
government, through the speech from the throne, has indicated that there will be measures relating to this problem. These measures may very well cover a wider field than can be covered in this bill. As I stated before, this bill simply amends the federal act and has no amending effect on any of the provincial companies acts. 1 do suggest, however, that if the bill when first introduced had been sent to a committee for study much valuable information would now be in the hands of the officials who have the job of drafting the proposed legislation. I suspect that these same officials will be referring to the debate which took place on this bill at that time as well as to the debate which I have just initiated.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has introduced a most interesting bill, namely an act to amend the Companies Act in which he specifies that companies operating in Canada but owned privately outside of Canada should have to give to the government and the people of Canada information relating to their annual operations. I believe it is safe to say there has been over the years a growing and widespread concern in our country at the fact that companies which would be covered by the proposed bill have not had to give information as to their operations in Canada. This widespread criticism has undoubtedly grown as a result of the information being made public as to the number of Canadian industries and manufacturing concerns that are owned outside our country, and with the knowledge that as a rule these subsidiaries do not publish their financial statements or offer the public any kind of information.
I was most interested in the fact that the proposer of this bill quoted at some length from the document "Policies and Practices of United States Subsidiaries in Canada" as published by the Canada-United States committee. It is indeed most opportune that this publication should have come off the press just in time for it to be studied prior to the discussion of this bill.


Ernest James Broome: I also think so.


Harold Edward Winch: It arrived only two days ago as far as my own post office box is concerned. I want to say that it is without doubt one of the finest and most exhaustive of the studies that have been made by responsible people and a responsible organization into the matter of the policies and the practices of United States subsidiaries in Canada. To those who may at this moment feel that there are objections to the bill may I say that if

Private Bills
they were to read this publication I feel they will find that all their objections are met, answered and disposed of.
In addition, of course, there is the positive approach in this exhaustive analysis, and that is the reason why this information should be available to the Canadian government and to the Canadian people. In my own reading of this pamphlet I was most interested to note the conclusion that the reason for the nonpublication of statements by the wholly owned subsidiaries was very simple, namely that the Canadian law does not require it. That was the major reason given by all those who were interviewed: As the Canadian law does not require it, why do it? However I was most interested to note that all those who were interviewed in the main stated that they could see no valid objection to the filing of such a return, that there was no reason at all why it should not be done and that it would not be very difficult to do. But why do it if the Canadian law does not require it?
However, one answer given as contained in this pamphlet put forward an objection and stated why at least two of the large companies did not want to have a Canadian law under which they would be obliged to file their financial statements and to give information as to their Canadian operations. The answer given by these two large concerns in Canada but wholly owned in the United States was this. First, there was the approach of one executive who objected to the publication of financial data on the ground that labour unions would be provided with information, and he did not want labour unions to be provided with information with regard to the operations of his company in Canada. Here is a company using our resources, our country and our labour and profiting by being allowed to operate in our country. But this executive did not want the men who do the work or their organizations known as trade unions to know about the financial affairs of his company. The reason he gave for this stand, as quoted by the authors of this most valuable pamphlet which I have mentioned, was that if the workers knew how much money the company was making it might make it difficult for the company in negotiations with the union with regard to improving the conditions of the workers. I think it is disgraceful that an executive of a company with an attitude like that should be allowed to continue without being obliged to make this information available.
On the other side of the picture, something that was also extremely interesting, was the approach of an executive of another company who did not want to be obliged to issue any financial statement or information because,

if that were done, the workers might want to unionize and he did not want them to unionize.
I think that this is a rather remarkable approach and that it is one we should consider. I believe that almost every argument definitely should be in favour of making it obligatory for these companies operating in Canada but owned outside of Canada to make public their operations, their financial status, their profit or loss and their depreciation.
The only other thing that I should like to add, Mr. Chairman, is the result of all the interviews that were undertaken by these two most responsible men, one from the United States and one from Canada, who did the research and the writing on behalf of this joint United States-Canada committee. This was their conclusion, and I think it should be noted. As a result of all their consultations with management and with executives and with many companies they were forced to the conclusion that, if it was felt in Canada that there should be the publishing of these financial statements, by far the vast majority of these companies would have no objection to doing so. If that is the conclusion, or the reaction, namely that fundamentally they have no objection to doing it but they are not doing it because it is not Canadian law, then I think that the hon. member who sponsored this bill has done the correct and proper thing in introducing legislation to make it Canadian law that these companies in the future will be obliged to operate in the same way as does any other company in Canada.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to follow the two distinguished members from British Columbia; I refer to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome), I am also happy to observe that all is calm in the province of British Columbia because on this occasion they seem to be in agreement.
Before going into the merits of the bill I think we should ask one question and then endeavour to answer it. The question is this: Why file a financial return at all? In order to answer that question I think one must look at the legal foundation of a corporation and see why some companies file financial returns and must do so under the law and why some companies do not file financial returns.
There are two distinct types of corporation. One is a private corporation and the other is a public corporation. Some are incorporated under the federal law, depending on their aims and objectives, and some are incorporated under the provincial law depending

on their aims and objectives. Of course, to determine whether it is a private corporation or a public corporation two points are involved. One is the number of shareholders and the other is how the stock is sold. If it is a private company it must have less than 50 shareholders. If it is a public company, it can be larger. Of course, the public then invests its money and subscribes for its shares.
That brings me to the particular answer of the question: Why file a financial statement at all? The reason why this practice grew up is briefly this. When the public are subscribing for shares there is an obligation on the corporation and on the directors of the corporation which is a public corporation to file a financial report so that investors in this country and in other countries who are investing in a corporation in Canada may get a fair shake for their money.
I am one of those Canadians who believes that Canadians and other investors in this country should get a fair shake for their money. That is the principle behind filing a financial statement. I do not think it was ever anticipated, with the greatest respect to the two members for Vancouver, that the reason why-if I understood their remarks correctly-a financial statement is filed is to give some state control over any corporation.
I am one of those Canadians who is always a little sceptical when I see state control either over a corporation or an individual, because it leads me back to the feeling of what might be the manifesto of the socialists.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


Ernest James Broome: Does he consider state control to be exercised through the government requiring companies to make returns to the dominion bureau of statistics, to the unemployment insurance commission and through the various reports that have to be filed? Is this state control? What control is there in asking for financial statements? This is not trying to tell them how to run their companies; it is asking them for a financial record of their operations, as they are now being asked for a record of their operations in other ways. I would like to see some logic on the part of the hon. member, that is all.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to see that my good friend for Vancouver South wants to make a speech at the same time as myself, and I am very happy to answer this question.
Companies file financial balance sheets with the income tax authorities, and that is confidential. The same thing applies to the other
Private Bills
departments he has mentioned. He may know more about that than myself.
Before being interrupted I was dealing with this particular subject. I agree on many occasions with what the hon. member for Vancouver East has to say, and with his ideas on many subjects, and I have always admired his oratorial ability and his ability to analyse a subject. Because you always know on which side of a subject he stands, and that is sometimes not always easy to determine with some other members of this house.
But when I was talking about control I was thinking back to the Regina manifesto. This is the kind of thing you have to guard against. I am not saying it is bad in itself, but any kind of state control, as I said at the beginning, reduces freedom of enterprise and competition, which I as a Canadian stand for. I know there must be some degree of control, but it is that degree with which I am concerned.
Back in 1933 a group of 131 C.C.F. delegates met in Regina, and this is what they had to say:
We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination of one class by another will be eliminated, in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic self-government, based upon economic equality will be possible-
It goes on to say this:
No C.C.F. government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full program of socialized planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the co-operative commonwealth.
I am not digressing from the bill when talking about control, and I repeat the last paragraph:
No C.C.F. government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism-
I suppose to eradicate capitalism you have to get some control over those enterprises that are capitalistic. Once you get some control you may be able to eradicate them. Of course, history has shown that the C.C.F. has not eradicated capitalism; capitalism has eradicated the C.C.F.
I might say this also. They have somewhat softened the blow, because they found that their appeal over the years with regard to this kind of control was not popular. That is what I certainly oppose, when they start talking about a certain kind of control, companies must do this and that and individuals must do this and that. They have somewhat changed their tune, because in August of 1956 they met in Winnipeg, which is a little east, of course, of Regina and things got a little softer, because I understand-

Private Bills


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I think it is time I suggested to the hon. member that he come back to Bill No. C-16.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to come back to Bill No. C-16 because the very element of the bill is asking certain companies to do certain things and is placing them under control. That is the very element that I do not like about the bill, and that is the very element I am trying to discuss in this debate before the house. Perhaps I might proceed, Mr. Speaker, if I am not out of order.
I feel that the element of control in this bill is a serious matter because, as I said in my remarks, the objective of the C.C.F. was to eradicate capitalism. It may be the very element of control that that particular party wants if they get into power. Perhaps they would eradicate capitalism by eradicating corporations and people engaged in enterprise. That is what I had in mind.
Coming back to what I was saying, they have somewhat changed their ideas in regard to the element of degree of control, because they then said:
The C.C.F. has always recognized public ownership-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. I am afraid I must remind the hon. member that on second reading we are discussing the principle of the bill. The principle seems to be whether or not companies should make a financial statement to the government. We are not discussing socialism; we are discussing Bill No. C-16. I would ask the hon. member to please come back to the bill.


Harold Edward Winch: He has got to talk it out somehow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for those remarks. In view of the ruling of the Chair I will naturally, as a backbencher, abide by the ruling of the Chair. Therefore I will come to another subject in reference to this particular bill.
In my introductory remarks I was saying that the reason why a financial statement was filed was to protect the investor and the shareholder. The reason financial statements are filed by certain companies is not to control the company. That was the main purport of the impression I was trying to leave in my opening remarks. That is true whether it happens to be a federally incorporated company or a provincially incorporated company.
I now wish to come to something else and I submit, Your Honour, that this refers to the matter under discussion, because my 
good friend the hon. member for Vancouver East dealt with the subject of subsidiary companies.
This bill appears to be aimed at corporations. Certain companies are able to go under the guise of a private company because the company owns the shares, but you may have so many shareholders that it is really a public company and not a private company in the true sense. That differentiates those who file financial returns and those who do not.
I have listened to debates in this house on this and other matters, and I do not think this particular government, looking back in the past, has ever been anti-American in any way. All this government has ever done, it seems to me, is this. I have listened to the members of the treasury benches and members of the government and they have said that Canadian capital must have equal competition with United States capital, wherever it exists.
I would like to draw this analogy when we are dealing with United States subsidiaries that have been doing business in Canada, and particularly in western Canada. Over a number of years in Alberta we have developed a very healthy oil industry. Some of those are subsidiaries in the same class and category to which my good friend referred in his remarks. It would seem to me that if we are to do anything we should be very cautious not to kill any kind of business or any chance that capital may come in from the United States to Canada.
We have only to compare the economy of the province of Alberta over the last 30 years with that of the province of Saskatchewan to illustrate my point. In the province of Alberta we have not had control or regulation to any degree such as is suggested in this bill, and we have a very expansive enterprise. Therefore the government is able to budget each year eventually, because of the oil industry, to very much better advantage than is the socialist government of the province of Saskatchewan. As a result, we get better enterprise, better roads and everything that goes along with it. I am one of those people who would oppose any feeling or suggestion at any time of anti-Americanism in this country.
I am one of those who believe we should always encourage American or any other foreign capital to come into this country and develop our resources so that we can get full employment. There is always a lot of talk about this, that and the other, but the fact is that if business is healthy and making a profit, a man has a job and there is prosperity in this country. In that manner it seems to me we can get full employment.

Let us take the industrial development of the province of Saskatchewan and compare it with the province of Alberta. You have a greater degree of prosperity in that province. People flocked into Alberta, while they left Saskatchewan, and this is because of the capital pouring in from the United States. So I say we should treat with caution any bill which might impose a kind of control which scares out capital. We are killing business, and when we kill business we lose jobs for Canadians.


Harold Edward Winch: What are they trying to hide, then?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will come to that. I am glad the hon. member raised that question. The hon. member for Vancouver East is always decent, and very honest with his facts. He referred to the "Policies and Practices of United States Subsidiaries in Canada." I just want to read from that document for a few moments. I say that the purpose of filing financial reports is not to exercise a degree of control; it is not to show labour or any other class of people what a corporation is making. The purpose behind it is to protect the investors and shareholders. If we are to come to a point where we say this data must be filed for a different purpose, if management must file this information for another purpose, then it may be that certain labour organizations which, in their turn, are sometimes subsidiaries of United States unions, would have to lay bare their financial reports to the people of this country. This has got to be a two-way street between management and labour.
It does seem to me after talking to the workers of this country-and I was one myself-that the workers today appreciate as never before that when management is making a dollar they have a job and are being paid a decent wage. I say that if this is going to apply to corporations it should apply to labour unions also. This has got to be a twoway street.
I want to refer to this particular article which the hon. member mentioned a few moments ago. I was just as happy as he was to have it on my desk so that I should have a few facts at my disposal this evening, because I did not have a speech prepared. I am quoting from this article "Policies and Practices of United States Subsidiaries in Canada" on page 40 and it says this in the last paragraph and I think it will answer the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: Read the second last paragraph.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, I will do that too. Here is what is said, actually on page 48:
Private Bills
The fact that the concept introduced by this argument is a new one does not mean that it is a bad one. But it seems useful to face the fact that when Canadians call for publication of financial data by wholly owned subsidiaries, they are asserting a public interest whose definition is still in the process of evolution.
In other words, this is a new idea. We used to file financial reports in order to protect the shareholders and investors. If we change that idea we are stepping out on a new path. That is the evolution the author is talking about. The passage continues:
It may well be argued that when the operations of any entity-business, government, private foundations, labour unions-affect the public interest, then those operations should be open to public scrutiny.
The important phrase there is the phrase "affect the public interest". So, the writer argues, it may well be that business, the crown corporation and the labour unions should be treated in the same way, because they do affect the public interest, and that these legal entities should have to produce a balance sheet open to public scrutiny.
If this were done, if it were a two-way street, then I might go along with the mover of this bill-I might go along with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) as long as he has forgotten the Regina manifesto, and say it might be a good idea. I felt that when the hon. member was speaking today he rose in his place in the interests of union members and of the public. I go along with the need to protect the public, to protect the little man in the unions against-


An hon. Member:: And the little shareholder.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, and the little shareholder. I am coming to him. I say that when it becomes a matter of public importance, and if this were made to cover the whole field I might go along with this bill, but you cannot give cake to one and not to the other. Now I would point out to hon. members that the passage on page 48 of this book continues:
But as far as we know, the public interest in knowing the financial details of business operations which do not involve direct investment by the public has never been asserted.
That is evolution. That is new thought. I develop that idea to point out it is a new thought, and when we enter on a new thought we must cover the whole field.
I have said a lot in reference to this particular matter, but I should like to repeat this: I believe that in dealing with any of these questions, where we pick out one group, whether United States subsidiaries or any other kind, we should remember that they are up here, as any one who is in business in Canada is in business for one reason,

Private Bills
namely to make a dollar. When capital and management are making a dollar, labour also is making a dollar. When you can encourage that philosophy and really get it moving you have full employment in this country. So, I say, it is easy to point out the difference between Alberta-


An hon. Member:: Not again.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know you do not like it, but I know what is going on in Saskatchewan, because I lived there. It is easy to see the difference between Alberta and Saskatchewan. Capital was invited, and enterprise was encouraged and in that atmosphere you have there full employment and you do not have to listen to a lot of drivel and nonsense.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Is he referring to the speech of my colleague from Vancouver South who introduced this bill as being a lot of drivel and nonsense?


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: I enter this debate with some trepidation in the light of the interpretation which has been placed on the purpose of it. As the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) has said, we must bear in mind the implication of the suggestion we have before us.
First, I should like to discuss this bill as it affects the private Canadian companies before commenting on its affect on the United States Canadian companies, because I think there is some difference in the attitude one could take. At the present time the private companies must file their income tax statements. That is a private matter between them and the government. Then they are required, in most instances, to make reports to their shareholders.
They are also required to make certain company returns. They are required to make their returns to the shareholders because it is of interest to the shareholders in a private company to know what is taking place in the firm but it is not necessarily a matter of public interest requiring that the affairs of a company-especially of a family company-be made public. For that reason I would rather hesitate to support the implication of this bill in so far as it affects private Canadian companies. I think that to do so would perhaps discourage the investment that is needed.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question or an observation? When the hon. member speaks of discouraging investment is he aware that the wholly owned United States subsidiary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Order. The hon. member rose to ask a question, not to make a statement.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I said "Is the hon. member aware" which is the prelude to a question. Is he aware that this company turns out one of the finest financial statements in an endeavour to keep the Canadian people informed and to establish good public relations? I will send this over to the hon. member so that he may look at it.


Murray Douglas Morton: 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I presume the house leader has no change to suggest in the order of business?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no change, Mr. Speaker, in the program as announced last night.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
« HOUSE OF COMMONS
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. Fisher: 1.	Has the government of Canada used the services of lawyers in the district of Thunder Bay, during the years from 1956-1960 inclusive, for any dealings in land or property under the National Housing Act?
2.	If so, what lawyers, at what addresses, at what cost?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of
Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	Lawyers engaged by C.M.H.C., district of Thunder Bay. January 1, 1956-Deeember 31, 1960.
Name and address of lawyer and cost to C.M.H.C.
Harold G. Blanchard, Q.C., 3-204 Arthur Street, Port Arthur, Ontario. $111.25, (repossession proceedings).
Callon, Pustina & Zelinski, 17A South Cumberland Street, Port Arthur, Ontario. $29.60, (rectifying title).
O'Connor & Carrel, Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Fort William, Ontario. $15.00, (deed of rectification).
G. L. Racicot, Geraldton, Ontario. $19.50, (proceedings against illegal tenant).
W. J. Weiler, Q.C., Twin City Gas Building, Fort William, Ontario. $129.50, (repossession proceedings).
In addition, the following lawyers carried out work consisting mainly of title search and preparation of mortgages with respect to loans made under the National Housing Act, 1954. In this connection the legal fees are paid by the borrower in accordance with
customary mortgage practice. The corporation has no record of the amount of these fees:
Muray W. Babe, Q.C., 103 Cuthbertson Block, Fort William, Ontario.
Harold G. Blanchard, Q.C., 3-204 Arthur Street, Port Arthur, Ontario.
T. P. Callon, B.A. Sc., 17A South Cumberland Street, Port Arthur, Ontario.
C. B. Devlin, Q.C., 106 Cuthbertson Block, Fort William, Ontario.
Arthur A. Kajander, Q.C., 11-14 Ruttan Block, Port Arthur, Ontario.
James F. W. Ross, Q.C., 7-9 Ruttan Block, Port Arthur, Ontario.
R. L. Seaman, Q.C., Public Utilities Building, Port Arthur, Ontario.
Kenneth A. Stewart, 112 Cuthbertson Block, Fort William, Ontario.
W. J. Weiler, Q.C., Twin City Gas Building, Fort William, Ontario.
(The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Citizenship-
48. Citizenship registration branch, $845,871. Immigration branch-
51.	Administration of the Immigration Act. $1,388,640.
52.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $13,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $7,507,122.
53.	Field and inspectional service, abroad, $2,298,559.
54.	Trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers, subject to the approval of treasury board including care en route and while awaiting employment: and payments to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $2,100,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 13, 1961