1964-09-25

[Stage Direction]
AT ROYAL 22ND REGIMENT CEREMONY [Translation]
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is based on an article published in the September 24 issue of the newspaper Le Droit and entitled: VanDoos allegedly refused permission to fly fleur-de-lis.
Presumably, the incident occurred during the ceremonies which took place on parliament hill Wednesday morning, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of this army unit. According to the press report, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) would have refused to let fleur-de-lis flags-the fleur-de-lis is the flag of the province of Quebec-be raised between the red ensigns placed around the national war memorial.
If such is the case, Mr. Speaker, I want to protest strongly against that insult and that outrage committed against the members of the Royal 22nd, a regiment almost entirely made up of French Canadians from the province of Quebec, in refusing them permission to fly the flag of their province during those ceremonies.
The Royal 22nd regiment is not the sole victim of that insult. The whole population of Quebec was insulted on that day.
Men of the VanDoos always conducted themselves as heroes in the various conflicts in which they took part. The valour, bravery and heroism of those French Canadians were reflected not only on the province of Quebec, but on Canada as a whole.
Again, today, it is the Royal 22nd which is entrusted with the peace keeping operations in Cyprus.
Everywhere and at all times the Royal 22nd has been a credit to Canada. It has produced thousands of heroes. It deserves better from the Canadian government than the insult to which it was subjected by the Department of National Defence last Wednesday.
Mr. Speaker, that was also an insult to French Canadians from Quebec and the other provinces. If my compatriots keep on being flouted as they were last Wednesday, the Quebec separatist movements will be justified up to a certain point.
Consequently, I would like the Minister of National Defence or, in his absence, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to explain or justify the refusal to fly the fleur-de-lis beside the red ensign during the ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Royal 22nd, and to present apologies to that unit.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to decide whether there is a question of privilege. This is an action which was taken outside the house. It does not affect the honour of the house nor the honour of the members of the house, and is more in the nature of a grievance. I regret that I see no question of privilege at all.

On the orders of the day:


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Would the minister have an explanation to justify the refusal to fly the fleur-de-lis together with the red ensign at the ceremonies marking the 50th anniversary of the Royal 22nd regiment?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is referring to the newspaper report I saw yesterday, it was not within my responsibility.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the question of privilege raised this morning by the hon. member for Dorchester, the Minister of National Defence

Question oj Privilege
stated his department is not responsible for that decision. Would the Prime Minister make an inquiry in order to find out who took that decision which prevented the Royal 22nd from hoisting the fleur-de-lis flag, and report to the house in due course?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I will look into the matter, but of course the normal procedure that is followed in these ceremonies will be followed as it has been in the past on similar occasions.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
As the Prime Minister stated that my question of privilege this morning concerned the protocol division, for which the hon. Secretary of State is responsible to the house, could the latter answer the question of privilege I raised this morning, as well as the question asked by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) with regard to the Royal 22nd regiment being refused permission to fly the fleur-de-lis flag during the ceremonies commemorating its 50th anniversary?


Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, a short while ago the Prime Minister promised to study the question and, if possible, to give an answer next week. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing to add.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Would the Secretary of State tell us whether or not this matter is a responsibility of his department?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, although I am not quite sure, I am under the impression that this matter is a responsibility of the Department of Public Works.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Can he give us explanations with respect to the question of privilege I raised this morning?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question early next week, and the facts I shall establish will defeat the allegations the hon. member for Dorchester made this morning, because the members of the Royal 22nd were given a warm welcome.

The hon. member can be assured that I will supply information which will clarify the point he raised this morning. He may be assured also, as well as all hon. members, that there was no discrimination whatsoever toward the Royal 22nd.


Pierre-André Boutin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is becoming a debate.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the house that the Minister of Transport has decided that a public inquiry should be held into the tragic loss of the aircraft at Ste. Therese, Quebec, on November 29, 1963, and that I have ascertained that Associate Chief Justice Challies of the superior court of Montreal is willing to undertake this inquiry.
In view of the magnitude of the accident and the great loss of life, it was considered desirable by the government that the inquiry should be conducted by a judge of the superior court, and I am sure there will be general satisfaction that Mr. Justice Challies is willing to act. The board of inquiry will be formally established and its terms of reference announced next week.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-125, to amend the Criminal Code (restriction on publication of proceedings).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, this bill would prohibit, except in cases mentioned in section 151 of the Criminal Code or any other legislation, the printing or publication of the names, addresses, professions or occupations of all parties and witnesses in all legal proceedings.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is the imention of the government to withdraw from participation in the international control commission in South Viet Nam? I ask this question in view of various news reports in the press and on the radio this morning.


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of Canada to withdraw from the international control commissions in Viet Nam, in Cambodia or in Laos but, as I stated a number of weeks ago in the external affairs committee, we have noted the criticisms made of particular commissions, not of Canada's participation but of the commissions themselves. I stated then, and I repeat now, that Canada is not anxious to cling to this particular assignment. We have indicated to a number of countries that perhaps they would like to participate if this were acceptable to the 14 powers. It is not our intention to withdraw, but it is also not our intention to stay on against the wishes of those countries concerned.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Is it intended that Japan should take the place of Canada providing Japan receives the support of these 14 countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The decision as to which countries should compose the commission is of course a matter to be decided by the Geneva accord powers. The view of the government is that Japan, a great Asian nation, should play an increasing role in the affairs of Asia. While we understand the reluctance of that country to participate in certain situations we hope, nevertheless, that an opportunity may be afforded to Japan to play an increasing part not only in the affairs in the area which immediately surrounds her but in Asia as a whole.


John George Diefenbaker: As part of that increasing role, does the minister contemplate Japan being a member of this commission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That would be a matter for the 14 powers, but Japan would certainly in our judgment be well qualified to play such a role.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Was this matter discussed with Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge when he was here a couple of days ago?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We had a general discussion with Mr. Cabot Lodge on a wide range of matters having to do with the situation in Indochina, and the hon. member may assume that this was one of the subjects discussed.


Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could he tell the house whether discussions were held about the cruelty toward South Viet Nam Roman Catholics when Canada decided to grant a substantial assistance to that country under the Colombo plan?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. member's question as notice and answer it next week.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRESENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the failure of the secretary general of the United Nations to obtain approval for the firming up of the authority for United Nations peace keeping operations on Cyprus, and in view of the critical situation which has developed since to the extent that the Turkish armed forces have cancelled all leaves for this present week end, can the minister give us some further details about what has taken place and what we may expect in the next day or two at the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not agree with the premise contained in the first part of the hon. gentleman's question. The security council is meeting this afternoon. It would seem now that it is not possible to have unanimity with regard to the kind of resolution some would like to see tabled in the security council today. It is thought that the particulars which were embodied in one of the draft resolutions being circulated informally would be such as to invite the exercise of a veto, and since this is not desirable it is more likely that the resolution finally to be placed before the council will be of a general character. But

Inquiries of the Ministry it will be of a nature which, in the opinion of the Canadian government and of other interested powers, will not preclude the conditions which the secretary general himself laid down in the report he circulated to the council about ten days ago.


Robert Norman Thompson: In view of the fact that the secretary general indicated that he would go ahead even without the approval of the council; and since Cyprus, supported by the Soviet union, has indicated she will not be in agreement, does the secretary of state feel there is reason for the optimism he has expressed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think there is reason for the course I have suggested but I cannot, naturally, foresee the exact results of this afternoon's meeting.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the proposal to keep United Nations troops in Cyprus for another three months at least, can the minister advise if it is the intention of the government to rotate the Canadian troops there completely; that is, replace the VanDoos, the R.C.D.'s and other supporting troops?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as we have already announced, if the period is extended and if the Canadian contingent remain they will be rotated.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a related question. What is the estimated cost of maintaining our forces in Cyprus? An estimate was given last March of $2,600,000 for the three month period. Does that estimate hold for the succeeding three month period?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In reply to that question, Mr. Speaker, may I say I believe we gave a monthly figure for maintaining the force there, and I think it would still be valid.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, on September 22 last the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) asked the Prime Minister whether the government


intended to form an agency to deal with eastern Canada feed grain.
He asked the same question again yesterday while I was in Montreal for the closing of the national week on forestry.
On June 24 the question of feed grain was referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and we are awaiting the report of this committee before taking a decision in that regard.


GRADING PRACTICES RELATED TO PREMIUM PAID
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have an important question for the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence perhaps the Minister of Forestry might take it as notice. Is there any truth in the criticism expressed at the meeting of the Ontario hog producers marketing board that the premiums paid for grade A hogs depend strictly on the amount of money allocated by the government for such premiums? In other words, if the allocated sum in the fund approaches depletion instructions then go out to the graders to cut down on their grading. Could the minister take some steps to correct this improper grading method?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister of Canada.
As it is now recognized by his government, and more particularly by the authorities of the Department of National Defence, that agreements concerning the defence of the North American continent will not be renewed on the same basis when they expire in 1967, and considering that nuclear warheads and rockets are mentioned in the agreements, is the Prime Minister in a position to state, since this whole defence program has now become obsolete, whether missiles and nuclear warheads will be returned to their previous owners when the agreement expires?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is far too large a question on defence policy to be dealt with on the orders of the day.


INQUIRY AS TO DISBANDMENT OF SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN REGIMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Further to my question to the minister two weeks ago respecting the possible disbandment of the South Saskatchewan regiment stationed at Estevan, Saskatchewan, can the minister now state that disbandment of the S.S.R. will not take place?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I am afraid I am not yet in a position to make an announcement in respect of the reorganization of the militia.


COLD LAKE, ALTA.  CONTRACT FOR AIRPORT HEATING SYSTEM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona with regard to changes being made in the heating system at Cold Lake airport. The question was, if this is to be done, is the work being put out for tender? Strictly speaking, the answer is no. However, I should add that it is intended to convert the heating systems of some 850 permanent married quarters connected with the R.C.A.F. station at Cold Lake to natural gas with an estimated annual saving of some $150,000 for heating costs at that station. The gas is being supplied by the Cold Lake Pipeline Company, the only company in a position to do so in that area.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence may I direct it to the acting minister. In the September 16 issue of the Montreal Gazette the minister is quoted as stating that the $1,000 fine levied against the Portuguese fishing fleet when a man jumps ship will be remitted if such an offence takes place in 20220-534J
Inquiries of the Ministry the port of St. John's, Newfoundland. I should like to ask the minister on what basis he can make a concession of this type for the port of St. John's only, under what authority the fine is levied, and by what means is he able to provide the concession in question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister, who is indisposed, I will bring this matter to his attention. I am sure he will be glad to do his best to answer this question on Monday or Tuesday.


CANADIAN CONFEDERATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
I should like to ask him whether, in view of certain statements made by political personalities at the provincial level, he does not intend to set up a commission which could look into the possibility of reducing the number of existing provinces in the country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. My question is based on information that has just come to me from the University of Michigan, to the effect that the university is undertaking a field study on the effect on United States wildlife of the building of the Rampart canyon dam, and that $25,000 was spent on the study this summer. In view of the fact that if this dam were built it would seriously affect Canadian interests, is any branch of the minister's department conducting a similar study?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the Canadian wildlife branch of my department is thoroughly conversant, and has been for

Inquiries of the Ministry many years, with the implications of the proposed dam in that area. We have done much more than make studies; we have made representations. I think some of the representations that have been made as a result of studies that have been carried out over a number of years have brought support from interest in the United States which otherwise would not have been forthcoming.


HAINES CUT-OFF    U.S. OFFER OF WINTER MAINTENANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, since their responsibilities overlap in this regard. I understand that the government of the state of Alaska has made an offer to the Canadian government for the maintenance of the Haines cut-off during the forthcoming winter season. Has the government accepted that offer yet? If not, when does it intend to do so?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the hon. member that our officials have been in the area and have made a report to us. I have had discussions with Governor Egan of Alaska and Mayor Lester of Prince Rupert. The matter is under active consideration, and we hope that some sort of decision will be taken within a week.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the time limit placed on the offer of the government of the state of Alaska, which indicates a great deal of urgency for action on the part of the government of Canada in order to provide economic maintenance?


Arthur Laing: Governor Egan of Alaska told me that both the efficiency and the cost would be favourably affected the earlier a decision was taken.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormislon (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has the answers to the questions which I posed to him a couple of days ago regarding the American strike directors who are in Toronto at the present time.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I made an inquiry in this case and found that Mr. Robert Ameln and Mr. George Hogan, who were temporarily admitted into Canada, are continuing their activities in Toronto for the same purpose for which they were admitted. With regard to the few persons who came to Canada after that and who are working for the newspapers in Toronto, I am still waiting a complete report on the inquiry that is now in progress in Toronto.


Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: A supplementary question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. I wonder when the minister will be in a position to report on the inquiry I directed to him through his office respecting the alleged use of strikebreakers by the newspaper publishers.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, as I said a few minutes ago, I have asked the office in Toronto to give me a full report concerning the admission to Canada of people who are supposed to be strikebreakers.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. So far as these two men are concerned to whom reference was made by the hen. member for Melville, the minister stated that they came into Canada as negotiators. They are described as strike directors in a leaflet put out in Toronto. If they are strike directors do they come within the provisions of our immigration laws, and are they welcome in our country? I ask this in view of the apparent acts of violence which have been taking place with increasing regularity in the last two or three weeks since they arrived as negotiators.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, concerning these two persons, Messrs. Hogan and Ameln, as far as I know they have taken no part in any violent activity in Toronto, but I am still awaiting a complete report on these two chaps and others who came to Canada since then.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister consulted the mounted police with regard to these activities? I am not speaking specifically of these two gentlemen, but generally.


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker, I received my report from the immigration office in Toronto.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is really a question of privilege. A moment ago I asked

the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he had communicated with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with reference to the acts of violence that are taking place in Toronto. That was an error on my part; I should have said the city police force of Toronto. Has there been any communication with them, particularly in view of the fact that these two men entered Canada as negotiators on the 24th of August and there has been no negotiation since that date?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the information I have received concerning Mr. Hogan and Mr. Ameln's activities came from the immigration office in Toronto. What I do not know is to what extent the immigration officers might have got in touch with the Toronto police force.
I shall be glad to ask my people in Toronto from what police force they received their information during the investigation.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding medical students using the student loan fund. Will the minister say whether repayment under the act will be required while the student is serving his internship and, if so, will the minister reconsider this aspect of the legislation?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, under the act the loans are repayable commencing six months after completion of the educational course. In this particular case they would be repayable during the period of internship. I would be very glad to consider this question, and if there is a good case for some change we will consider it when the act next comes up for review.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the secretary of state tell the house what develop-
Inquiries of the Ministry ments have taken place in respect to the proposed conference which is to be called by Canada of nations which might be willing to contribute to permanent stand-by forces for international peace keeping?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. We hope this meeting on peace will be held in Ottawa during the week of November 2. Several governments have already informally indicated their desire and intention to participate. We are now awaiting the reaction of other governments.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the secretary of state could tell the house if the proposals contained in the memorandum of the U.S.S.R. regarding measures to strengthen peace keeping activities of the United Nations are being followed up in any way by this government, and about which the minister can tell us?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they are.



REPRESENTATIONS BY U.S. RESPECTING COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Secretary of State of External Affairs. Is it a fact, as reported yesterday in the Ottawa Journal, that the United States, through Mr. Cabot Lodge, has strongly advised or cautioned Canada against recognizing mainland China or supporting her admission to the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there was no discussion of that subject.
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of Ihe Opposition): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any foundation for radio or television reports to the effect that as recognition of China is a matter that should take into consideration the feelings of our allies, recognition is to take place after the month of November and early in 1965?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I know of no grounds for suggesting that this will take place early in 1965. No one can say definitely when a decision on this matter will be finally reached.

Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CONFERENCE TO ESTABLISH ECONOMIC PRIORITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. When he suggested in Montreal this week that there must be much greater co-operation between the federal government and the provinces in planning priorities in the economic and social fields, was he indicating support of Premier Roblin's suggestion that a federal-provincial conference should be convened immediately to plan priorities in the economic and social fields, and has he made these views known to the Prime Minister?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, my speech was distributed to all members of the house, and if my hon. friend would read those parts of my speech found on pages 4, 14, 20, 21 and 24 he will see there is no relation between the request of Premier Roblin and what I had to say about economic planning in Canada.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address an urgent question concerning the lack of passenger accommodation on the railway trains between Montreal and Vancouver. I am sorry the Minister of Transport is not here, but perhaps the Prime Minister would care to comment on it or direct it to the attention of the minister. It has been almost impossible to get reservations on the C.P.R. trains during the past several weeks, and just a few days ago they removed all sleeping car accommodation from two of the trains they are operating. Would the Prime Minister bring this matter to the attention of the Canadian Pacific Railway and request them to provide at least sufficient service to meet the demand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister is taking up this matter would he also look into the difficulty in obtaining accommodation experienced by railway union members as against fare paying passengers? I understand it is very diffi-

cult for employees of the railway to get accommodation on the trains. Would the Prime Minister also inquire into this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I will do that also.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as house leader. Will the minister be arranging for his estimates to come before the house prior to the conference of attorneys general next Thursday so that members of the house may express their views on methods of amending the constitution?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I did say I would try to have my estimates entered. They are automatically entered now, and I shall try to arrange to bring them before the house for this purpose if at all possible.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the words "if at all possible" in the minister's answer, in the event it does not prove to be possible will the minister assure the house that some other opportunity will be given the House of Commons to express its views on this subject prior to the conference?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, we shall try to arrange some kind of system to allow members of the house at least to express their views on the matter.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is the minister in a position to provide the house with information relative to the fatal stabbing of a guard at Dorchester penitentiary? And may I ask if this unfortunate incident is associated with overcrowding at that institution?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the immediate answer to the second part of the question with respect to overcrowding is no. I am not in a position to disclose all the circumstances connected

with this matter at the moment, because I have not been able to ascertain whether a charge has been laid and whether the matter is before a court. I shall be in a position on Monday to relay to the house whatever information I can get.



MEETING WITH MINISTER TO DISCUSS PENAL REFORM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: have a question for the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask him whether he has received a request from the Canadian correction association and associated organizations for a meeting with the hon. gentleman at which they can express their doubts about some of the policies which the department has announced. If such a request has been received, can the minister tell us whether a meeting has been arranged?


Guy Favreau: I am not sure whether I have received such a request. Either it has not been brought to my attention or I cannot recall the precise request to which the hon. member refers. However, it is my clear and firm intention, and I have so stated, that the officers of the Canadian correction association, like those of other bodies interested in penal reform, shall be consulted regularly about these problems in which they are so deeply interested.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Does the minister propose to permit a special appeal in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Bergsma and to grant a certificate of citizenship to them, or does the minister contemplate that the Bergsmas should themselves take action to question the decision of the judge?


René Tremblay: My estimates will be coming up after the orders of the day, and this is such a large subject I suggest to the hon. member that there will be an opportunity for the Minister of Justice and me to have a full discussion of the subject at that time.
Inquiries of the Ministry



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry a question?
Is the minister now in a position to tell us when he will announce the designated areas for the coming year, and what standards will be used this year to designate these areas?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, this question really is comprised of two parts. In respect of the first part, I think all hon. members will be aware that annually a review of the employment statistics in each of the n.e.s. areas is carried out. As a consequence of this review one can expect that some areas hitherto designated will cease, by reason of the improvement in their economic conditions, to be designated. It may happen also that some n.e.s. areas not now designated, as a consequence of deterioration in their conditions during the year, will come to be designated. This review is currently in progress, and since it covers the statistics for the summer months we hope that in the not too distant future we will be able to make an announcement as to which areas will be designated or will cease to be designated in the forthcoming year.
I am in a position to say that because of the substantial improvement in economic conditions in Canada during the past year, preliminary indications are that this program will have been successful in leading to the removal from the designated area list of certain presently designated n.e.s. areas. I am happy to be able to announce this, to indicate the success of the program and more particularly the general advance made by the Canadian economy during the year.
I should perhaps take this occasion to remind hon. members that this year an amendment was made to the act in respect of areas which may be removed from the designated list, to provide that enterprises which are now contemplating establishing in designated areas may, if prior to dedesignation they have filed with the area development agency a notice of intention to establish commercial production and if they proceed with reasonable dispatch to establish such a

Inquiries of the Ministry new enterprise, receive the same advantages as if the area had not been dedesignated. It is therefore incumbent on those who are looking at the possibilities of establishing in designated areas to make up their minds and take action in the matter.
In so far as the hon. member's question relates to an alteration in the objects of the program, as I have said on a number of occasions this is a large subject and we are addressing ourselves to it. I would hesitate to set a date for the termination of this review.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of a recent treasury board ruling which drastically reduces, and in some cases cancels, northern allowance payments to civil servants in some federal departments while in other federal departments in the same areas no reductions have been made in these payments, will the minister consider a review of this entire situation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to refer this question to the President of the Privy Council. I am sure he will deal with it at the beginning of the week.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can the minister tell the house when a further meeting will be held with provincial and municipal authorities with regard to the implementation of the amendments to the National Housing Act; and if these meetings are held will members of this house in the regions affected be invited to be present?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmasler General):: I am glad to be able to inform the hon. member and the house that the second of these conferences will be held in St. John's Newfoundland, on October 9 and 10. The two provincial ministers in the province of Ontario, the minister responsible for public housing and the one responsible for the field of

urban renewal, Hon. Mr. Spooner, are coming to Ottawa with Mr. Soble, head of the Ontario housing association, for discussions here on October 6. At that time I hope we will be able to fix a date for a meeting in the Toronto area or perhaps two meetings, one in Toronto and one in Hamilton, to which interested members of this house will be invited as they have been in Halifax and in St. John's.



MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Russell MacEwan: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has the minister received a communication from the board of trade of Pictou, Nova Scotia, regarding the berthing of the Canadian hydrographic ship Acadia in that port during the coming winter? If so, has he made a decision on this important matter?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I have not yet received a communication this season. I did hear from them last year, but so far this year I have not seen anything cross my desk from the board of trade.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Will the minister check on that and advise me?



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, based on the press release of the special committee for the royal visit which was distributed to members yesterday. Having read the communique quite carefully I notice there is no reference made in any of the official functions to the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. In view of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is a member of the Queen's privy council and is an ex-prime minister of Canada I am wondering whether this, perhaps, oversight might be rectified?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will be treated on this visit exactly in the same way as members of the privy council and former prime minister were treated in

previous years on visits of Her Majesty to Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice that I wish to go into this matter further on Monday at 10 p.m.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Industry which is prompted by a telegram sent on behalf of thousands of automobile workers in Canada, relating to the government's incentive program for automotive parts. Has the government of Canada received representations from the government of the United States, or anyone on its behalf, with respect to changes in the government's automotive parts incentive program? If so, what was the nature of those representations, and what response was made by the government of Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the government of the United States has, of course, drawn to the attention of the Canadian government the fact of the presentation of a petition by one of the motor car parts manufacturers in the United States to the United States government, urging the imposition of countervailing duties on Canadian automotive exports. The United States government has also indicated that this program has caused some concern in the United States, and to this end the Canadian government has been exploring possible ways of meeting this concern, at the same time pursuing vigorously the Canadian government's objectives of rationalization of the motor car industry in Canada and the expanding even further of the north-south trade directions in automotive parts.
Mr. Scot!: In view of the fact that we all agree with the general objectives of the minister's department may I ask whether in these conversations or representations the United States representatives requested any changes in the present program and, if so, were any responses made?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the petition presented to the commissioner of customs it is to be expected that the United States would suggest that the present arrangements are not entirely satisfactory. As I say, the Canadian government has been ex-
Inquiries of the Ministry ploring possible alternatives which will have the result of achieving the same end objective, namely increased trade north and south in automotive parts between our two countries, in a way which will achieve that objective but which will not perhaps cause the same concern as the present method has caused.


Reid Scott: As a final supplementary, in view of the general uncertainty in business and labour circles surrounding this whole program, does the minister feel he could consider this carefully over the week end and, at the beginning of next week, make a fairly comprehensive statement on the intentions of the government in this regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain I would agree with the premise that there is great uncertainty. This program to date has been remarkably successful. The expansion in the first five months of this year of both exports of automotive parts from Canada and imports of automotive parts into Canada has been such as to lead to a substantial increase in activity on the Canadian side in the automotive parts industry. Therefore I am a little at a loss to understand why there should be uncertainty.
I can reassure the hon. gentleman that if there are to be any changes in this program they will be in the direction of making it even more expansive, and even more likely to achieve the objectives sought through the present arrangements.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, in view of the uncertainty I mentioned I would like to give notice to debate this matter at the earliest opportunity, some night at ten o'clock.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Does he intend to comply with the resolution passed at the 43rd annual convention of the municipalities union requesting the establishment of a municipal bank? Does his department intend to give serious consideration to that resolution?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration be expected to reply to a question of that kind on orders of the day.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the request that has been made by certain hon. members for some broadcasting time on the C.B.C. I wish to announce that I have now been informed by the corporation that the C.B.C. is prepared to allocate a total of a half hour to the three smaller parties in the house. The C.B.C. is communicating with the representatives of the three parties in this respect.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When will the legislation respecting the latest version of the Canada pension plan be on the order paper?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I imagine the resolution will be on pretty soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the undertaking given to the house by the Minister of Justice on July 6, when he said:
-the government undertakes to obtain the completion of the legislative process with respect to the Canada pension plan before the end of the session.
Does this undertaking still stand?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we still hope that will be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.

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



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Guy Favreau: For the convenience of certain members and with the concurrence of the


house leaders of all parties I would ask that item 10, that is immigration, be called first. Afterward we shall revert immediately to item 5, which is citizenship.


The Chairman:: Is that agreeable to the committee?


Mr. Howard:: Before it is agreed, I think the Minister of Justice would be well advised to indicate for whose convenience this change is being asked. I have just discussed this with my deskmate, the whip of our party, and he tells me he did not agree with this change; he just noted it.


Mr. Winch:: I should like to ask why this notification is being given to us now when I, and I presume others, have guided ourselves by the previous announcement that the first item would be citizenship. I came prepared to speak on the estimates of the citizenship branch, though I also wish to speak on the subject of immigration. However, I do not have that particular file with me at the present time.


Guy Favreau: I think it is within the normal authority of the government to call items in any desired order. I thought it would be more appropriate, though, to advise the house leaders of all the parties, and I believed this morning that I had secured their respective concurrence. Possibly I misread the note which came back to me from one quarter of the house.
The reason I am making this suggestion for a change in the order in which the departments are to be taken is that there is a meeting of cabinet of which I am chairman which is supposed to sit at twelve o'clock. I shall not be able to be present here until 2.30 p.m. I know that certain hon. members have expressed interest is discussing, for example, the question of oaths with respect to applications for citizenship, and I know the minister of immigration would like me to deal with certain questions with which I am concerned in the course of my duties as Minister of Justice.
Before twelve o'clock, one of the members of the official opposition who has now left the chamber asked me whether we could not call that item after 2.30, because he had to leave and would probably not be back before then. I may say, though, that it was not this suggestion which prompted the proposal for a change; my note to the house leaders was sent before that request was made. Perhaps I could correct myself in one particular; the hon. member to whom I have just referred

was not a member of the Conservative party but a member of the New Democratic party.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed that we begin our discussion with item 10?


Frank Howard: For my own sake, I think the government should in future consider proceeding on its own initiative.


Guy Favreau: We are prepared to take responsibility for this and proceed on our own initiative, but it seemed to me courtesy required that I should ask the house leaders for concurrence.
Immigration

10. Administration, operation and maintenance, including transoceanic 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 and $10,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $13,552,200.


David Orlikow: I am sorry that at this late date, when the government has been in office for as long as it has, the present administration has as yet given no indication that it is prepared to move fairly quickly toward a basic rewriting or amendment of the Immigration Act.
It is not my intention today to reiterate in great detail the inequities and difficulties which have arisen as a result of the Immigration Act as it stands and, more important, as a result of the regulations made under its provisions. However, members of the committee will, I am sure, recall that this matter has been discussed on a number of occasions when detailed criticisms of the act as it exists today have been made and the difficulties which arise out of this legislation have been pointed out.
I wish to summarize some of these difficulties in order that the minister may be reminded once again of the reasons we believe a complete revision needs to be undertaken. For example, it seems to us that the regulations should be amended immediately to remove a continuing discrimination in respect to sponsored immigrants by granting applicants the right to know the reasons for exclusion, as well as a proper hearing and right of appeal when they are excluded. At the present time an administrative device is used to exclude people arbitrarily. They are refused visas. Reasons for refusal are denied the applicant, and the only appeal which is
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration open to him is heard by an administrative board composed of former administration officials who, in turn, do not give reasons for their decisions.
Some of these matters were discussed in great detail when this house considered the situation of people who had entered Canada illegally and who were detained for long periods in Toronto and Montreal. Partly as a result of discussions in this house and as a result also of publicity and condemnation in the press, the government appointed Mr. Joseph Sedgwick to conduct an inquiry. I do not wish to interfere in any way with that inquiry. I do not wish to suggest to the government that they anticipate Mr. Sedgwick's recommendations, but I do believe the difficulties we have experienced indicate clearly that it is time for a basic revision of the Immigration Act.
It is widely felt that the act and its provisions are being used to discriminate against prospective immigrants to Canada on the basis of race, religion and colour. I know-and the minister, I am sure, would remind the house if I did not say so-that the situation is much better than it was. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I can tell the minister that very important groups of people and very important countries are still extremely dissatisfied with our attitude in regard to this question.
I have in front of me a speech made by the premier of Barbados, Hon. Errol Barrow, to the Canadian institute of international affairs at the University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, on October 25, 1963. I want to read just a couple of paragraphs of this speech into the record, because I believe it is important to the house, to the minister and to the people of Canada to realize that some of our commonwealth partners have a very poor opinion of Canada's attitude toward them. It seems to me that if the commonwealth is to mean anything, if the commonwealth is to be more than just a name, surely the Canadian government, the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people ought to do everything possible to wipe out the inequities which exist. If such inequities and injustice do not exist, surely the minister and his department have a duty and a responsibility to get across to these countries what the actual situation is, so they do not think they are being discriminated against on the basis of race, colour, religion, and so on.
I wish to read just a couple of paragraphs from this speech because I think it is not only an excellent speech but it demonstrates how the peoples and the governments of the West
8438	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Indies feel about Canada and our immigration policies. Here is what the premier of Barbados said, in part, on that occasion:
And now I come to what is perhaps one of the more vexed problems of the relationships between your country and ours, and that is the question of immigration. The government of Canada is responsible for the policy of immigration into this country like any other government is. A government has to lead from in front; a government cannot wait to find out what the attitudes of little isolated groups of people in that community may happen to be in order to formulate its policy. And this is something on which I am very strong. Very often people in a country cannot appreciate the reasons or the motives behind the action of a government in implementing proposals or passing legislation; but a government has to be outward looking and a government has to lead from in front. And I am not satisfied that on the question of immigration the Canadian government has ever led from anywhere but far in the rear of public opinion. The truth of the matter is that the liberalization of the immigration policy around about January or February, 1962 allowed West Indian immigrants who have special skills or who have relatives in the Dominion of Canada to come into this country without any great formality. Formalities still exist, but they are not as rigorous as they were before. Despite this liberalization of the immigration policy of this country, we find that last year only 1,500 West Indians entered the Dominion of Canada out of a total migrant entry of some 75,000 or 77,000 people. We have approximately three and a half million people in the British Caribbean and in the same period 4,500 people went to the United Kingdom from Barbados alone and, subject to correction by the Jamaican high commissioner, about 12.000 Jamaicans went to the United Kingdom. Now it is much more expensive to get from the Caribbean to the United Kingdom than it is to get from the Caribbean to the Dominion of Canada. Furthermore, I think that the West Indian would much sooner endure the rigours of a Canadian winter than the vagaries of an English summer. I have never heard a West Indian working in this country complain too much about the winter, but in the middle of summer I have heard them make some very unfavourable comments about the English weather. Therefore the proposition would have to be that the West Indian would sooner come to Canada than go to the United Kingdom. Why then do we get from two territories alone something like 18,000 West Indian workers, despite the commonwealth immigrants act of 1962, going to the United Kingdom and only 1,500, including 250 domestic servants who come out under special visa arrangements, coming to the Dominion of Canada? To be brutally frank, ladies and gentlemen, there is a feeling that in the large influx of unskilled Italian and other European immigrants coming into this country, there is either tacitly or explicitly some element of discrimination against the West Indian immigrant.
Later the premier of Barbados said:
And that is why I think that a government ought to stop hiding behind such shibboleths as housing problems and problems of accommodation, problems of integration and that kind of thing, and give the lead from in front and not trail so dismally behind.

I want to emphasize again that these are not the words of an ordinary immigrant, a person who comes to Canada and does not know what is going on in Canada, who does not know what is going on in Great Britain and does not know what are the problems of the West Indies. These words come from the premier of one of the West Indian countries. I think the people of Canada and the government of Canada owe it to the people of the West Indies, if the commonwealth concept means anything, if the democratic concept of equality of all people regardless of race, religion and colour means anything, to either correct this situation which the premier of Barbados says in his speech exists, or we need to do an educational job of explaining to the people of the West Indies why this situation exists about which the premier of Barbados has spoken.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one other question with regard to immigration. We have not had as large an immigration into Canada in recent years as we had in earlier years, but the nationalities that have come here have changed very markedly. The number of people who have come from Great Britain and from the northern and western parts of Europe has dropped, certainly percentagewise, very substantially; and the number of people who have come to Canada from eastern and southern Europe, from countries like Italy and Greece, has increased very substantially.
I say this, Mr. Chairman, not in any critical sense, because I think it is obvious why the people who traditionally came here from countries like Great Britain are not coming now. I have mentioned the reasons before, as have other members. Naturally when they have full employment in western Europe, while until this year at least we have had for the last ten years substantial unemployment, people are not going to come here. Naturally people from countries like Italy, Greece and Portugal, which have a much lower standard of living than Canada, are going to come here as quickly as we permit and encourage them to do so.
This is what has happened, Mr. Chairman. I not only do not disapprove of this, I welcome it, provided the department, in co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities, recognizes some of the problems which have arisen and will arise as a result of this change and takes steps to help integrate the people who have come here so they may become what
[Mr. Orlikow.l

they want to become, namely law abiding, well adjusted, well integrated citizens of Canada.
I think they have done remarkably well. One can visit the new Canadian areas of any large city in Canada, whether it be Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver, to mention just a few, and see how well these people have become integrated. One must admit and be happy at the fact that the largest percentage of them have been able to find jobs, learn to speak English and do a better job [DOT]of integrating into our society than they were able to formerly. But the fact is that for a large number of them this integration has been very difficult. In many cases it has not yet begun, and many difficulties still exist.
It seems to me that the department must have a much closer look at the kind of people who are coming here and at the problems which have arisen. I do not think the department must do this necessarily by itself, because I recognize that to a large extent these social and economic problems are the responsibility of the provinces and the cities in which these people live. But if the federal government is going to encourage people from Italy, Greece and Portugal to come here, it seems to me that it is the responsibility of the government and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to do everything possible to see that they are integrated into our way of life as quickly as possible.
To a large extent the people who have come here from countries such as Greece, Italy and Portugal are people who do not know the language, and that is understandable. They are people who have lived under governments and regimes which were not democratic. Some were fascist, some certainly autocratic; and the knowledge of these people of democratic society, how people live under our kind of government, and their knowledge of institutions like trade unions and co-operatives is, to say in the least, very limited.
There was an excellent series of articles about immigrants in Toronto which appeared in the Globe and Mail in September of this year, in the course of which some of the problems these people face were dealt with. The fact is that many of them are mercilessly exploited just because they do not know our language, our laws and our customs. The Globe and Mail listed-I am sure it was not difficult to obtain a list because any trade union organizer in any city in Canada could
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration provide one-dozens of cases where immigrants worked here, particularly those who did not understand English, for months if not years for wages which were less than the law of the province required.
It seems to me that to say that minimum wage laws are a provincial matter is just not good enough.
If we encourage people to come here, Mr. Chairman, to work in restaurants, laundries and the construction industry; and if there is evidence-and I suggest to the minister there is ample evidence-that they are being paid starvation wages and are being exploited, I submit it is the responsibility of the minister's department to work with the provincial authorities in order to make sure that the people who are encouraged by the government of Canada to come here receive the protection to which they are entitled.
A large number of people who have been brought to Canada are working as agricultural labourers. I know these labourers come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and even if they did not one could not expect the minister to deal with labour problems, which come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labour. But a large number of immigrants in recent years have worked as agricultural workers in rural areas, and like other agricultural workers they do not receive the protection of the minimum wage laws, the workmen's compensation acts, hospital insurance, and so on.
I do not think it is good enough for the department to say that all agricultural workers are affected by the same kind of situation, and it is a matter which has to be dealt with by the provincial ministers of labour and the other provincial departments concerned. After all, these people came here at the urging of the federal government. They came here because the federal department established means for encouraging them to come here. It seems to me we need to establish through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration agencies and offices to protect immigrants in the transitional period until they have an opportunity to learn the language, to learn the laws of Canada and what are their rights.
It has been suggested by people who have made special studies in this field that we need new agencies, either government agencies or voluntary agencies, established in areas where these immigrants live, staffed by people fluent in the language of the immigrants to act as a liaison between the immigrants and the community. They would be able to keep track of newcomers to the neighbour-
8440	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration hood and provide them with advice and assistance which they will need if they are to become useful, happy citizens in this country of ours. There are some voluntary agencies working in cities such as Toronto, but the ability of voluntary agencies to handle this kind of complex and expensive undertaking is very limited, and certainly limited by lack of finances.
As I said, if this government is going to continue to encourage people to come to Canada, particularly people who are new to our language, our customs and our way of life certainly I will support them in this program, because I think people from these countries I have mentioned as well as other countries should be encouraged to come here. But it seems to me that if the government are to continue to do this, as they have for a large number of years now, in fairness to them the department must establish a means so these people when they come here receive the assistance they require to enable them to become useful and happy citizens.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I want to contribute very briefly to the discussion of the citizenship and immigration estimates. I wish to take part in this discussion in order to express a few personal ideas concerning the whole problem of immigration, even if those concepts may, in some cases, seem somewhat bold.
Mr. Chairman, I think that for the federal government immigration represents a moral responsibility as well as a social one. Not only with regard to Canadian citizens but to the citizens of the whole world.
Our country has immense resources but is still sparsely populated.
Indeed, there is certainly room for a very large population, and it should be recognized that the 19 million-odd people in this country are only a very small population for such a vast territory.
On this basis, it must be recognized that we have a double responsibility, that is to maintain a buoyant economy in Canada, and also to open our doors to people from overpopulated countries who are only too glad, at this time, to find some other place under the sun where life is a little easier.
But there are many problems connected with immigration, and the economic problem is not the least one, if we consider the fact that, at this time, the department of immigration is trying by various means to attract to Canada people from other countries so
[Mr. Orlikow.l

that they may work with us in the development of this country.
On the other hand, we recognize and deplore the fact that a very large proportion of our university graduates, technicians, and all those who have attended university, are crossing the border to the south, because they are attracted by better economic conditions in the United States.
We, in Canada, are trying by every means to raise the educational standards of our people. In the province of Quebec, more particularly, we see that the government is earmarking a very large part of its resources for the educational field, but, unfortunately, we find that in the end a very large proportion of our graduates cross the border and remain in the United States where they find greater advantages and greater possibilities of advancement.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Department of Citizenship and Immigration could not give special consideration to that problem because the exodus of our graduates to foreign countries constitutes an extremely serious loss for Canada which, on the other hand, is trying to attract citizens from other lands who, in most cases, do not have the technical knowhow and who are not adapted to our culture and our economic and weather conditions.
I should like to call the attention of the minister on that particular point because I feel it is most important for us to make the necessary effort to keep our citizens, our brothers and our children but especially our university graduates whom we need so much and who will remain here if we can, within our economic system, offer them the same advantages as they would get in the United States, at this time, or at least comparable advantages. In my opinion, economics are closely related to the immigration policy we must follow in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, there is a particular problem I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. It may be somewhat delicate because it has to do with the previous traditional attitude of Quebec concerning immigration.
Yet, I think it is fairly easy to explain or, if you prefer, to justify the attitude French Canadians from Quebec had, in past centuries, toward the coming of immigrants.
I think we have to go back to the year 1760, when France left Canada as such and when England took over the control of the country, to understand what has been the situation of the French speaking Canadians in a Canada which was becoming an English colony.

Having decided they would remain a French entity on this North American continent, they had to settle in the back country, I might say, and stick to the land in order to survive. And during 100 years, they categorically opposed immigration because they knew that for them, immigration, in the situation then prevailing, was a threat to their very existence and meant assimilation sooner or later.
Since that time, 200 years have passed and during those 200 years, the French-Canadian group, as such, has laid strong foundations which practically ensure its survival. Indeed, I think that survival is no longer a problem.
What is a problem at this time is to maintain its percentage within Canada as a whole. I think that is where the federal government has a very serious responsibility, the responsibility to see about maintaining that percentage. That is not easy; it is even very difficult, I know, all the more so as my fellow citizens in the province of Quebec still have difficulty in understanding the problem, and especially in considering the solutions we may put forward in order to maintain that proportion of the French speaking element in Canada.
Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the people of Quebec should completely revise their philosophy concerning immigration.
Admittedly, if Quebec maintains its present position toward such immigration, we shall definitely see the percentage of French speaking Canadians diminish compared to that of English speaking Canadians.
In my opinion, the possibilities we have of maintaining that percentage are quite limited; we should therefore take full advantage of those possibilities if we really want to attain this objective.
Personally, after analysing the situation and scrutinizing the various aspects of the problem, I have come to the conclusion that the Quebec government should partake in the immigration policy of this country. Here, I would like to call the minister's attention to a positive suggestion I intend to make. The minister of education in Quebec, Hon. Paul Gerin-Lajoie, is, I believe a highly qualified and very broadminded man, and especially he is able to speak to the population of Quebec. By his initiatives, he proved that he had the ability and the qualifications.
It is very difficult to convince the people of the province of Quebec who are over 50 years of age that such a change is necessary in their attitude toward immigration; but it is not so difficult to convince the young
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration people. If we want this mentality to develop in the province of Quebec in the matter of immigration, we must work among those who, tomorrow, will become French Canada, that is to say our young people.
There should be, and I feel strongly about this, the closest relationship between the Quebec minister of education and the federal minister of immigration, so that together they may arrive at policies liable to give the results we are all hoping for, that is the maintenance of the present percentage of French speaking people in Canada.
There are very specific reasons, Mr. Chairman, for the maintenance of such a percentage. One of them arises from the present grievances on the part of this group of Canadians in Quebec against confederation and in favour of Quebec's withdrawal from confederation. That grievance, that separatism, since you want to call it that, also originates in immigration. We are afraid, because we realize the possibility of assimilation and we cannot see any solution to that threat other than the withdrawal of Quebec from confederation, so as to form a French state, independent from the rest of the country and able to control and maintain at the present percentage the French speaking people on the North American continent.
I believe that, in view of the facts, we should try to foster the coming to Quebec of immigrants with a Latin culture. I realize it is very difficult to attract to French Canada, or any other part of Canada, French people from France, and I understand this, because France is not overpopulated-it is a country that could be compared to a garden where people live in economic and climatic conditions that are practically ideal; it is very difficult to make a Frenchman leave his own country.
Therefore, if we cannot rely on French nationals to come to Canada or to Quebec to complement the natural increase in our population in order to maintain our percentage of French speaking people in Canada, we must look in another direction. I can only think of one solution, and that is Italy. Italy is overpopulated particularly in the north. It is a Latin country. We have considerable cultural affinity with the Italians. I think that we, Quebeckers, should make a superhuman effort in that direction.
I would like the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to study the situation very closely in order to see to what extent we should bring Italian citizens to Quebec at the present time, because I believe that if they
8442	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration cannot be assimilated into the Canadian context, it they cannot be assimilated into the Quebec context, the French context as such, we should be prepared to make certain concessions. In my opinion, particularly in Quebec, we should be prepared to accept a very large number of Canadians of Italian ancestry in Quebec because, although we may not speak the same language, there is nevertheless a tremendous cultural affinity between us.
If we oould attract a large number of Italian immigrants to Quebec, it would be the only really practical solution for us to offset the present trend indicating that the proportion of French speaking Canadians or those of Latin culture is decreasing in the country.
I hope that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will duly note those remarks. If he discussed this problem with the Quebec minister of education, both of them could include in the educational program of the province of Quebec, a subject dealing with immigration that would be taught in all Quebec schools.
I feel that in the Quebec educational system at present, emphasis should be laid on the need to increase Canada's population. I believe we should make it clear to our school children that the coming of immigrants to our country is not a threat to our economy, far from it.
I believe there is an urgent need to increase our population. It is a matter of prime importance at present, if we want to overcome those economic problems resulting from the fact that our territory is too large for our small population. This automatically causes serious transportation problems which affect production costs before reaching the consumers. Canada must increase its population. Since our neighbours have a population of 200 million people, as long as we compete with that country, we shall experience difficulties, being unable to establish secondary industries requiring large investments in order to achieve mass production which is only justified in itself by a large consumption.
Our immigration policy must be revised. Quebec was right to object, in the past, to the coming of immigrants into Canada. Today, however, Quebec must bow to facts and change its attitude because its very existence is threatened, since, in the first place, the percentage of its population will be reduced considerably year after year compared to the total population of the other provinces and, in the second place, its economy may fall in
(Mr. Lessard (Lake St. John).]

value proportionately to the increase of the population in the rest of the country. Quebec's economy will no doubt continue to improve, but at a slower pace than in other parts of Canada where immigrants are welcome.
I urge all my Quebec compatriots, who will perhaps hear about the speech I am making here today, to lay aside prejudices and any purely local reason they may have against the coming of immigrants into the country, and consider more objectively the problem facing us today.
Personally, I think the citizenship and immigration department should open a larger number of offices in Italy, especially in the north, where apparently there are 525 people per square mile. I do not know if my figures are correct, but I am told that Italy numbers about 250,000 new nationals every year. There is seemingly more Italians living outside Italy than in Italy itself. If that is the case, I think we should do everything we can to attract Italians to Canada, more particularly from northern Italy.
Why from northern Italy more particularly? Because living near the French border these people have more affinity with us than those living in the south. Also, because the northern part of Italy is economically and industrially more developed, it would be easier for us to find there people more qualified and able to adjust to our Canadian complex, from an economical and industrial point of view. Another reason for which I favour the coming to Canada of Italian citizens-it may not apply to everybody, but in Quebec I think that it is an important reason-is that Italy is the seat of the Catholic church and that a large majority of Italians are Catholics. For us, in the province of Quebec, this aspect is very important. Having made those remarks, I think-


Auguste Choquette: Are they practising Catholics?


Marcel Lessard: My hon. friend is asking me if they are practising Catholics. I would not go so far as to suggest that they practise their religion more than we do in Canada. On the other hand, I cannot insult them by pretending that they practise it less. In any case, we in Quebec have only ourselves to blame if we do not practise more.


Auguste Choquette: Do you pretend that we do not practise our religion as much as they do?


Marcel Lessard: Unfortunately, I do. We must strive for perfection and, as

far as I am concerned, I realize that the goal is still to be reached. I also think that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) finds himself in the same situation.
I should like to come back to the economic question, the sore spot in the objections of most people. I believe that here, in a nutshell, is Quebec's main objection: we now have 200,000 unemployed and, if we were to accept 100,000 Italians each year, would we then have 300,000 jobless people after two years and an additional 100,000 a year later?
I feel that, at this time, it is possible, through the publicity media available, to educate the population in regard to the economy, so that they may understand that the economy of a country expands with its population, and that the more the population of the country increases, the more the Canadian economy will be buoyant and prosperous.
In my opinion, the population of Quebec can understand this reality as well as that of the other provinces. All we have to do is use television, radio and newspapers to carry out an objective publicity campaign and to put forward these facts which will substantiate my statements.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks, I must point out that we need a larger population to settle our huge territory.
We also have a responsibility to the population of the overpopulated countries, and in my opinion we must prepare ourselves to face this responsibility by offering reasonable economic conditions and by opening wider the gates of Canada to immigrants, so that we can develop our country and build here a truly Canadian industry, owned by Canadians and in a position to compete on world markets.
We must do that, while safeguarding the rights of the French Canadian minority in this country, giving it the assurance that it will survive, that it is in no danger of being assimilated and that it will always have the place to which it is entitled, from the point of view of its percentage of the total population as well as from the economic point of view.


Mr. Canielon:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say something about immigration from the West Indies, possibly on the same line as that taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Immigration from the West Indies has been poor in numbers, and I suppose this is because we have imposed restrictions. I am sorry we have these restrictions, because in most cases West
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Indians speak at least one of our two official languages. They have the same ethical standards as ourselves, though I am free to admit they do not always observe them any better than we do; and, of course, they are members of the commonwealth. These ought to be sufficient reasons for us to remove restrictions on West Indian immigration. Of course I must also say we need to be careful not to remove all the restrictions, because there are many people in the West Indies who could not make a living in Canada and who would not fit into our society.
In 1952 when the present Immigration Act was passed, some 710 people came to Canada from the West Indies, and until 1955 the annual rate of immigration from that area ran at around that very low figure. In 1956 one restriction was removed and immigrants were allowed to enter Canada from the West Indies provided they were designated by the West Indian government as domestic servants. When that happened some 1,058 of them came to Canada, and during the next five years immigration remained in that range.
In 1962 the government decided it would be advantageous to remove that particular regulation and put in its place a restriction -perhaps I should not use the word restriction-rather, a regulation allowing people with certain educational standards, training and skills to enter Canada from the West Indies, and in that year some 1,480 immigrants came to Canada from the West Indies. Further, the then government sent immigration teams to the West Indies, and partly as a result of their work and as a result of the new regulation, in 1963 some 2,227 people came to Canada from the West Indies, still a very small number but at least those who came were able to fit into our society.
A total of 75,000 people left the West Indies in 1962, of whom only 1,480 came to Canada, but it is obvious there are many people in the West Indies who would like to settle elsewhere. I request the minister to review this whole problem carefully and introduce liberalizing measures which would allow entry into our society of more West Indians capable of making their living in Canada.
It would be unwise to open the doors wide and let them all flood in, because they are not accustomed to our climate and I am afraid some of them could not adjust to our system of living. However, the previous Liberal minister of citizenship and immigration said his government wanted to remove any stain of racial discrimination from the Immigration

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Act. I would hope the present minister agrees with this and will review the whole problem of West Indian immigration so as to allow more of these people who would like to come to Canada to do so.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard). I agree with the main part of his remarks, especially when he talked about the immigration of Italians from the north. Of course I am for judicious immigration to Canada.
Since the hon. member for Lake St. John talks about immigration for the province of Quebec, I think the Quebec government should take the necessary steps to settle those immigrants there. The other provincial governments should do the same thing. Those who want to encourage strong immigration should see to it that immigrants are well settled and looked after so that they may adapt themselves to the Canadian way of life.
I wanted to stress the fact that Italians from the north would certainly be qualified to come to Canada as immigrants.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Peters:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Baldwin:: This is the first opportunity I have had to speak while any matter of concern to the hon. minister was before the house and I wish to extend to him my best wishes in the administration of what I consider to be one of the most important departments of government in the country, particularly at this time.
Before I deal with the estimates I should like to take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of the co-operation, the understanding and the assistance of all members of the hon. gentleman's department, from whom I have never had anything but the utmost courtesy in connection with the various incidents I have had occasion to bring to the attention of the minister.
We have heard some interesting speeches today and I think I can safely say that my views coincide with most of the views which have been expressed, because despite what has been said to the contrary it is still my


impression that the concept of immigration in this country is very much the same as it was many years ago and that it will continue to be for years to come. I took the occasion during the lunch hour to look up in the library the beautiful inscription which appears on the statue of liberty-part of a poem by Emma Lazarus which is inscribed on a tablet there. I think these are words which the minister and his officials here in Canada could well bear in mind:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
There are some who say this expresses a principle which no longer holds good. I deny that most emphatically, particularly because in the world today-and I have had occasion to speak on this subject before-we see approaching at a rapid rate numerous problems which will arise in consequence of the population explosion throughout the world. The expectation that the world population will double within 25 or 35 years must give us pause. We have in this country the area, the place, the opportunities, the resources. We have also a need for the people who will be cast upon our shores by reason of this population explosion.
I know there are some who feel there should be limits drawn on grounds of colour, race and religion. But I would point out that we are now rapidly approaching an age when the dropping of a nail somewhere in the deserts of Asia will have its impact in all parts of the world, and these divisions are not as valid as they were. I had occasion just over the last week end to fly to my constituency, a vast area stretching over the northwestern third of the province of Alberta. On Saturday in a small plane I flew north to a place called Hay Lakes which is along the route of the new Great Slave lake railway. Here I saw millions of acres of arable land. I flew low over tremendous forests waiting to be exploited. The railroad goes to the Pine Point area, a mine where a town will shortly be built. I flew over small hamlets which are rapidly becoming towns in an area where as a young lawyer 30 years ago I walked and rode in pursuit of my professional duties-an area with gas and oil, all that is needed to make a wealthy country, save only people; an area which could accommodate 5 million people with no difficulty at all. It seems to me that as time passes our statesmen will find it increasingly difficult to hold up their heads in council chambers of the world

to which they will from time to time be called unless we now direct our efforts towards bringing about a complete immigration policy.
I have been looking at the statute. I may be wrong and if so the minister will correct me, but it is my impression that we still have virtually the same statute as was on the books in the revised statutes of 1927. True, there have been some changes, additions and deletions but generally speaking much of the wording remains the same. I do not place the blame for this upon the minister or upon his officials. This is something which we as a people have neglected. We have failed to turn our attention to it. In the Peace river area, and indeed in all parts of the north our requirement is for people. We wonder whether or not we are going to secure the immigrants we need to develop our country as we did in the past.
There is no doubt that in what might be called the good old days-or probably they were the bad old days-people migrated from east to west because of depressions and difficult times. There were some who were adventurous, but mainly they were people who wanted to move because they were compelled to do so to carve out for themselves a new home and a new career. This is what caused wave after wave of settlement both south of the border and north of the border between our country and the United States.
That situation no longer prevails. We have now brought into our economic system what one might call built-in shock absorbers through our social legislation, through all the various schemes that, I think wisely, we have thought fit to place upon our statute books. There will no longer be in our country any wave of migration such as I saw in my country in 1929, such as existed there in 1914, such as we saw throughout the west in the last century and was also witnessed in the United States. It seems to me that if when the first settlers came to this continent they had found unemployment insurance, old age pensions, family allowances and all those other social benefits, the west would never have been settled and the people who live on this continent would still be living in crowded misery east of the Appalachians and around the great lakes. So to settle this area in the west and north, to fill it with the population which it requires-and I think as a nation having these empty spaces we have a duty to make them available-we will have to attract and secure the entry into this country of people from outside these limits.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I am going to be very brief in my suggestions, Mr. Chairman. I suggest to the minister this will require a new concept of the problem of immigration. I wish to make this suggestion to the minister before I sit down.
I understand there is under consideration a new act. All too often some act is formulated by a minister and his advisers, and when it emerges, it emerges as partisan legislation in the sense that it is ultimately offered by the government. I suggest to the minister that he should give serious consideration, before bringing forward any legislation, to the appointment of, or to asking the house to consider the appointment of a small select committee which could operate, possibly this year but certainly next session, to deal with this whole question of immigration, our approach to it, the question of what, if any, limitations we should place on the entry into this country of other people, the relation of our immigration policy to our economic and social problems, and in particular the necessity of settling that part of the country which lies to the north.
There is just one other matter I wish to deal with very briefly before concluding. Some other speakers have mentioned this question. I was on the island of Jamaica last winter during a very brief visit to the West Indies. Jamaica is a small island of some 3,400 or 3,500 square miles, with 1,800,000 people. It has a very small area of arable land; much of it is mountainous, much of it is unfit for cultivation and, as an hon. member said earlier, it is a country which is part of the commonwealth, a country which has many of the same principles, the same outlook and the same future as we have. This is an apt illustration of the problems which we face: To what extent should we, must we, give consideration to liberalizing our immigration laws so far as people from this area are concerned? It is my submission that this is a subject matter which lends itself exceptionally well to treatment by a committee of this house, a committee of members who are in constant touch and liaison with the people of Canada and who I think would be able to come up with some recommendations and advice to the minister at some time prior to the presentation to this house of a new Immigration Act. I conclude, Mr. Chairman, by asking the minister to give very serious consideration to this suggestion.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I have a great interest in the estimate which is now before us because, representing the constituency of Vancouver East, I have a riding in which there
844S	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration is a strong concentration of Canadians with varying ethnic backgrounds. Although the majority are what we might term British in origin, there are in Vancouver East many thousands of people whose ethnic backgrounds are Italian, Chinese, Germanic, Scandinavian and East Indian. It therefore follows, Mr. Chairman, that I receive and have to deal with a great many questions and problems with regard to the meaning and operation of the Immigration Act, our immigration policies our immigration regulations, etc.
Over the years certain factors have stood out in dealing with these questions and problems of my constituents. The first is one that was mentioned in the concluding remarks of the previous speaker, namely that a new Immigration Act is necessary. Mr. Chairman, it is now almost becoming an historic reference to make mention of a new Immigration Act. If you go back over the years you will find that every time a new minister takes over the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the first or second speech that he makes in public, nearly always to an ethnic group somewhere in Canada, is to the effect that he is going to give priority to the overhaul of the Immigration Act and immigration policies, and will introduce a new act. Over the years I do not know of one minister going into that portfolio who has not done this within a week or two. Yet we still do not have that act.
In this respect, Mr. Chairman, the new minister is no different from his predecessors. He is kind enough to send to members of parliament copies of his words of wisdom as he spreads them across Canada in his speeches to ethnic groups. I have them. He, too, gives top priority to the need or necessity for a new act. Therefore, and rightfully so, under this estimate we can ask as top priority, will the minister tell us when the years of saying that this overhaul of the act is going to have priority are going to end, and the overhauled act will be introduced into the House of Commons for the consideration of its members? That is the first point, Mr. Chairman; because I think we have all agreed over the years-all parties and all ministers -that there is this need.
The second point is something with regard to which I believe I have considerable knowledge because of the ethnic background of the constituency of Vancouver East. Speaking from memory, over the years I do not believe I have ever raised an immigration problem with the minister or his predecessors that was not because of an approach made


to me by a Chinese Canadian, an Italian Canadian or an East Indian Canadian in my constituency and dealing with the landed immigrant status of a relative. Whether it was a wife, child, brother or sister, it was a relative. Every time an application has been made on behalf of a Canadian in my constituency- and I have had many cases because I have such an ethnic stronghold, if I may put it that way, in my constituency-dealing with the landed immigrant status of a relative, be he from Indian, Pakistan, China or Italy, what has amazed me and continues to amaze me is the length of time it takes to process the application or to resolve the problem after it is brought to the attention of the department, either directly by the applicant or when the applicant comes to me as his member of parliament and I raise it for him. I could understand a matter of weeks or even three or four months would elapse, but my experience has been that month after month after month goes by, in some cases more than a year, before these matters are processed and resolved. That is not a good state of affairs. It is not good on the basis of public relations, international understanding, or for members of parliament who are trying to handle the grievances and problems in their constituencies so far as immigration matters are concerned.
If the minister were to tell this house that there is a shortage of staff at home and abroad, or a shortage of medical practitioners in Hong Kong or in our overseas offices, and were to ask this House of Commons for the required staff when he brought in his estimates, I can assure him that I would not be standing alone to back him and to see that he gets the required staff so that we can have an efficient processing of matters affecting immigration. I also think there are many problems caused by unnecessary red tape, and I sincerely hope that some examination is being made to correct the delay in processing due to unnecessary red tape.
I want to follow this up, Mr. Chairman, with another phase, one which I regret having to mention because the minister and his department must be getting a pile of files and correspondence between his department and myself concerning cases I have drawn to his and to the department's attention on behalf of my constituents. I regret having to say this, but it is my opinion that there is too much emphasis being placed in the department on trying to find some technicality, some regulation, some specific reason to turn down an application for landed immigrant status, rather than using a humanitarian

approach in order to see whether or not it is possible to meet the desire of the applicant or to meet the proposals constructively presented by members of the House of Commons on behalf of their constituents. I say this particularly with regard to applications made by Chinese which come before the department.
I fully realize all the difficulties in the past and even some of the difficulties in the present. I fully realize the problems the department has had as a result of illegal entry, lies and confusion and contradictory statements, many of which have been cleared away now as a result of the policies regarding amnesty since 1961 or, in the cases of people who entered Canada after July 1961, the sympathetic consideration shown to them. I fully realize that these contradictions have occurred and these confusions have abounded but the more I deal with the Chinese the more I understand them. It is because these people themselves are confused and even scared. The reason for these contradictions and confusions is the fear that the ultimate decision will be a negative one. I should like to give two or three examples of this, as I think it is the best way to bring home what I have in mind. I will deal only with my constituents in Vancouver East.
After months of negotiation and the interchange of correspondence-I realize the minister had to deal with both his Vancouver office and Hong Kong and correspondence went back and forth-finally yesterday I was told that in the case of one application the answer was no, it would be rejected, and the reason was there was confusion in the mind of this old man as to the date when his son was bom, etc. This applicant is an elderly Chinese Canadian for many years resident in Vancouver who operates a small business store in my constituency. His first wife was killed at the time the Japanese went into Hong Kong. Then he married again and his second wife is here. He had a child who was born in Canada and this child is at school. But he wants to bring over to Canada one son of his previous marriage. This man is old and not well. His wife is ill. She has just come out of hospital for the second time having undergone further operations, and he wants his son to take over the store and help keep his other boy at school. He made his first application 12 years ago and I am still fighting his case. But I have been informed that the answer is no because of this old man's confusion. He has been told
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that he cannot prove tnat this boy in Hong Kong is his son.
I am sorry that he cannot prove it, and frankly I do not know how he could prove it. But this is the point. If this boy is not his son, will you tell me, Mr. Chairman, why this Chinese Canadian who has operated a small grocery store for some 12 years in my constituency has been sending this man some $50 Canadian a month for his security and maintenance in Hong Kong? He has kept all the receipts, and I cannot conceive of an aged Chinese sending $50 a month to maintain someone in Hong Kong who is not his son. As I say, he made his first application 12 years ago and still wants this young man to come over. The authorities say that although perhaps there is some truth to this, otherwise he would not be doing it, the answer is still no. The authorities say that what he said 12 years ago and what he said two months ago do not jibe, so they have turned him down. It is this attitude that I cannot understand. Surely it is the milk of human kindness to consider these cases from the humanitarian point of view rather than look for technicalities; and surely the benefit of the doubt should be in favour of any applicant. That is just one example, but I want to give some others to drive my point home.
I have in my constituency another aged Chinese. How many years he has been in Canada I do not know but I do know that for 35 years he was the No. 1 boy-that is the term they use-of one of the most well known financial and industrial families in Vancouver. After 30 years as No. 1 boy he retired. He had saved his money and he bought an apartment block in Vancouver East which he is now running. He has only one child, a son born in Canada. That son has spent seven years in the R.C.A.F. and is still in the air force as a pilot. He is away from home.
His mother-in-law is in Hong Kong and she is very old and very ill. Admittedly she is old and ill. She has only one, two or three years of life left but she has been refused permission to come to Canada to see her daughter again and to die here. She can receive all the medical treatment she needs here. The man is prepared to pay her fare and to give her all the medical attention she requires. He will put up a $1,000 or $2,000 bond if the department requires it. But the answer is no.
With her is a nephew of this constituent of mine who at a very tender age was sneaked
8448	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration out of mainland China. He is one of five who were sneaked out and he is with the grandmother in Hong Kong. This constituent of mine who has a son in the air force and owns an apartment block would like to bring this boy over here along with the mother-in-law and raise him in Canada. What is the answer? The technicalities of the regulations. The department does not believe in splitting up a home or family. How in the name of heaven are you going to split it up any more than it is?
This tyke was sneaked out of communist China into Hong Kong. He is not going back and it does not look as if he is ever going to get out of Hong Kong. He has been there for four or five years now. The only one he knows is the grandmother. Yet the answer is that the mother-in-law cannot come because she is too old and medically unfit, and the little boy cannot come because the regulations or the law or the policy say that a family should not be split up. This may be the law, this may be the regulation, but if it is I say it is a stupid law, a stupid regulation, when the milk of human kindness cannot be exercised in cases such as these.
The minister knows I could give more examples but I have just given these two because for the life of me I cannot see any reason for this attitude on the part of a country that claims it is progressive and wants to help people. We brought in displaced persons who had no relatives in Canada, and the fact is that some of them had tuberculosis or other diseases. No regulation, no policy, no law of Canada stopped us from giving assistance to the freedom loving Hungarians. Yet when it comes to Chinese Canadians who have lived all their lives in Canada and who want to bring in a mother-in-law and a young nephew confusion is compounded and technicalities stand in the way. So the mother-inlaw and nephew cannot come to this country although their transportation is guaranteed, their security is guaranteed and a bond would be posted before they came. But the department says no.
I ask the minister to take a second look at this type of case in which I am interested and let us see if we cannot give a demonstration of the height to which Canadian democracy can grow, and what it really means from the point of view of dealing with cases on the basis of need, on the basis of humanity, on the basis of sympathy, on the basis of sentimentality and not so much on the basis of law and regulations.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, although I had no intention of taking part in this discussion about the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, during the next few minutes, I should like to add my own comments to those made by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard), who, while giving us an intelligent review of the situation, did expound certain principles which did not quite excite me.
If one chooses to deal with the problem of immigration, one is doubly justified to do so if one happens to be a French speaking member, especially in view of the climate in which events are now taking place in the province of Quebec.
Another thing which leads me to take part in the present debate is the principle expressed at a meeting I had the opportunity to attend. I refer to the meeting of the Quebec Liberal federation, where the supreme authority there, Premier Lesage, stated that the Quebec government was the political expression of French Canada.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that, at this time, the government of Quebec may be the strongest political expression of French Canada, but not its true political expression. I rather think that the political expression of French Canada is found in the French Canadian members sitting here in Ottawa. It should be the most important one, and it is precisely the one which has to discuss such a basic matter as immigration.
My hon. friend from Lake St. John said:
We should try to maintain the percentage of French speaking people which now exists in this country.
I am not exactly excited over this principle, because I think that our objective, as French speaking members, should not be to maintain a percentage of 27 or 30 per cent, but, on the contrary, to restore a balance which was upset by a lack of any positive immigration policy on the part of the Quebec government, which has been inactive, apathetic, and even guilty, in the field of immigration, because it is evident that, however one looks at it, immigration has clearly been to the disadvantage of French speaking Canadians. Indeed, we have been constantly pressed back because of our immigration policy.
At this stage, we are not concerned with finding out who is guilty, but we want to find solutions. Consequently, the principle set forth by the hon. member for Lake St. John, to the effect that a certain percentage must be maintained, certainly does not excite or stir

me. On the contrary, I believe that we should try to restore the upset balance and to increase the French speaking element in this country. We should make an inventory of all French speaking sources of immigration, to make the required selection and see by how much we would be able to reinforce the French speaking element and hence, Canadian unity itself.
In addition, if confederation continues to operate artificially as at the present time, a certain split may occur, and that should be prevented and avoided at all costs.
It is also necessary to establish a cultural interdependence among all Canadians, regardless of their ethnic origin. We should also have a Canadian ideal.
I am convinced that strengthening French minorities outside Quebec would contribute to create Canadian unity; a Canadian atmosphere and ideal would unavoidably be created and thus cultural interdependence among all Canadians would be greater. This is the ideal which I have in view and this is the reason why I wish to go beyond the thought expressed by the hon. member for Lake St. John.
On the other hand, my hon. friend had an excellent idea when he suggested that Canada should tap immigration sources in Latin countries. We have a better chance in Quebec to assimilate people with a Latin culture. The hon. member suggested northern Italy as a place where our country could go for immigrants, and I would say that he is perfectly right.
I do not feel I am straying from the thinking of the party I represent in this house by stating that such is the aim or intention of the Liberal party since we kicked those ideas around and decided that something should be done sooner or later-no date has been set-to open an immigration office in northern Italy, specifically to get immigrants of good stock, good reputation. Besides, the minister might have the opportunity to announce shortly the opening of an immigration office in Marseilles or Bordeaux.
As a matter of fact, his predecessor, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) had done so.
In this way, Mr. Chairman, our immigration policy would be sounder and more consistent.
I must add, in conclusion, that some will say: If you, French Canadians, complain of having been taken in with regard to immigration, it is surely your own fault.
It is true that at one time strangers were not welcome in the province of Quebec. This
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration attitude was denounced by several people who were anxious to improve our political position in the field of immigration.
I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. fticard) who once worried about the coming of Algerians. Imagine. A few French speaking Algerians were coming to the province of Quebec to take our farmers' places.
It is this archaic, old-fashioned and backward mentality that put us on the downgrade in the province of Quebec. That is the reason why our immigration policy always made us the losers.
This is the prototype of those narrowminded people unable to understand that Quebec is in full development, that it must develop and needs immigrants to achieve this aim. The stronger the French element, the stronger Canada will be, because we are all interdependent.
This must be the goal of all members of the house.


William Arnold Peters: I would be very brave indeed if I were to continue in the vein of the last speaker. No matter which side of that particular debate I took, I think I might be the loser. The immigration policy of a country is, in my opinion, probably the most important problem, especially in so far as a country like Canada is concerned. Most segments of the economy consider we will have to increase the population of our country by immigration by at least 50 per cent or more in the next ten years to provide the opportunities that are available to the Canadian people. We need a vast number of immigrants in this country.
I believe it would be very difficult to decide in Timiskaming, in fact in any part of northern Ontario in which I have had the opportunity of living and working, who the immigrants were going to be. It would be difficult to maintain an ethnic balance in northern Ontario because the independent countries from which a large segment of the population came no longer exist. This is true of some of the Scandinavian areas, the Slavic and Baltic areas. These people have brought many benefits to northern Ontario from those areas, benefits that cannot be duplicated. I do not believe it is necessary for us to maintain a balance, particularly when it is something that was unplanned in the first place.
We should be embarking on an immigration policy which is designed to increase invest-

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration ment in the country and thus make it a better place for all citizens to live. In order to do this, Mr. Chairman, we have to have a fair, reasonable and internationally honest immigration policy. I have had differences of opinion with the officials of the immigration department in the past but, knowing civil servants, I am sure these officials are all very sincere. They are well aware of the problems facing them. I think the hon. member for Peace River put forward a suggestion that would eliminate some of the problems facing the senior civil servants when he suggested the appointment of a committee that would study what the government of Canada wanted to accomplish, what our aims were in connection with immigration. I know that if the Canadian people were able to decide at an election by referendum whether or not they wanted to bring in more immigrants to raise the population of Canada rapidly in the next ten years, the vote would be overwhelmingly in favour of that course. I know also that if you asked the people who they wanted to bring in as immigrants you would receive as many varied answers as there are ethnic groups. There has to be a set policy.
The minister must be faced with tremendous problems, because his predecessors were. Each one of them, upon going into citizenship and immigration, said that he or she would revise the act; that the things the hon. member for Vancouver East so eloquently expressed were facts. Certainly no minister who has any human tendencies at all would be able to read these letters without feeling strong emotions. This situation has resulted, over the years, in many orders in council which are really only an excuse, a legal method of doing something by way of exception that you cannot do in general. I am sure this minister is faced with the same problem. I am sure that every one of his advisers will tell him: You should do this but you cannot; you cannot do these things for the reasons that have been developed over the years.
I was sorry to see the former deputy minister, Mr. Davidson, go, because he had great understanding and an abundance of humanity which would, in my opinion, have enabled him to overcome some of the reluctance to look beyond what is honestly accepted by most officials of the department as being the facts. Many officials feel there is no way of changing the situation without creating a situation even worse than the one we are trying to correct. I believe if a committee were set up it could decide some of the ways in which our aims could be accomplished. I

believe the minister is going to have to consider this committee set-up before he proceeds to change the act.
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that I have not been here very long but I have heard every minister say, privately and publicly, that he or she intended to do something about the Immigration Act. I should like, just for a moment, to mention one problem that has faced us and with which we are running into the greatest difficulty now. I refer to the Asiatic immigration policy. I was shocked when I heard the minister say a few weeks ago that the amnesty order for Chinese would be off as of then. I do not believe that is possible. It is not possible for the simple reason that the officials of the department have not been able to get the Chinese population to believe their story. This is a problem for two reasons:	One, the officials cannot
speak Chinese, which is probably the greatest barrier and, two, there are not enough officials in the field who know the Chinese population well enough to have been able to establish a private relationship. There is no need to go into what happened six or seven years ago. All you have to do is look over the orders in council and you will find where the fault lies respecting many of these immigrants who came in illegally. They came in because of pressure groups. They were brought in by agencies and by people who wanted cheap labour. This was an organized thing to a certain extent, and I imagine that to some degree it still continues; but in fairness to the department, in most areas I know it has been cleaned up, including both the Hong Kong situation and that affecting the officials who operate in the Chinese communities in Canada.
However, we have not been able to convince the Chinese people. I spoke to seven or eight Chinese not long ago, and after I left them I was told seven of them admitted they should be applying under the amnesty order and that they were prepared to do so. We have not enough interpreters to handle the work under the amnesty order, and therefore I think the minister has to leave the order open, while at the same time making it plain that it will not last indefinitely, because if it does we will never be able to improve the Immigration Act sufficiently to stop illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration is a multimillion dollar racket. Every pseudo-gangster in the country wants to get into it because it is real big business. Recently I talked to a young Chinese boy who said he was brought in on a $30 a

month basis under a five year contract. He had to pay his passage back, and the costs involved were $5,000; and during the five years of his contract he was paying $30 a month.
This is not a case of a kind old neighbour bringing one of his friends or relations from China. It is an organized machine, and the Canadian public should be told this machine exists. The public should be asked for support in seeing it is curtailed, and I suggest we should make it very plain both here and through our officials in Hong Kong that we are not going to tolerate it. The department should conduct a large scale advertising campaign to tell the Chinese people that if they go to these schools in China, from which they are sent to Canada, they will be deported.
Deportation should not apply to those already here. All I ask of them is to help us straighten the mess out, so that we will be able to decide who they really are, and clean up the whole rotten mess. Many of these people were brought here under highly criminal circumstances, and most of them have been the innocent victims of a machine that works to their disadvantage and to the disadvantage of the Canadian immigration policy.
I know the R.C.M.P. have information on many of these orders in council, but I also know that when they go into a file and discover an order in council they are told to lay off. This may be all right. I am not interested in having anybody prosecuted or persecuted, but I think it would be wise to go into some of these orders in council through the agency of the R.C.M.P. It is not good enough to ask a Chinese seeking the benefit of the amnesty to make a confession and disclose how he came into the country. He will not tell that; but we have other ways of finding out how the machine works and putting a stop to it.
Many Chinese who come to Canada are in their teens and they will make good citizens. It is only the rare exception who has turned out bad, and though it is true that in the main Chinese have not got involved in civic affairs, certainly they have always been willing to assume responsibility when called upon to do so. I have been very impressed with the Chinese I have met, ever since I became interested in this question. Four years ago when the amnesty was announced I did not believe fully in the sincerity of it, but the successive ministers since then have convinced me that it is solely for the purpose outlined, and so I have been very happy to work with the Chinese communities and with the immigration officers.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
It is unfortunate when I find a senior civil servant not willing to co-operate. However this has not affected me and probably has not affected him. Certainly it has not affected the other officials in the department with whom I work. Those Chinese who are in Canada legally should ask questions of members of parliament. These Chinese are wondering if this is the proper time to come forward and declare themselves. A few weeks ago the minister scared the pants off them when he said the amnesty was coming to an end. Applications flooded in, but there are still some who are reluctant to come forward, and members of parliament could do a great service for them.
I suggest we make it perfectly clear to would-be Chinese immigrants that we will not tolerate future illegal entries. If we do this, and later a Chinese boy goes to a school in Canton, where he is given a new identity, shipped to Hong Kong and then transported to Canada, knowing full well he is breaking the law, then he will deserve to be returned to China. To do this the minister will have to undertake extensive publicity in Hong Kong and on the mainland to show that we are overhauling our immigration law to close the loopholes that have existed until now.
In my opinion the Conservative government and its ministers of immigration should be thanked for stopping the order in council system. That system was one of the worst ways of making exceptions to the law. The law should be changed, and I suggest members of parliament be consulted. I suggest a small committee should go into this matter and it should also give consideration to the problems of ratios which have been raised by members from Quebec. These problems will have to be met and we must devise an immigration policy that will facilitate the entrance of desirable immigrants.
I believe we will be obliged very shortly to consider the need to obtain increased immigration and we shall have to be very charitable in considering those countries from which the immigration will come. Why would anybody leave France to come to Canada? Why would anybody leave Germany today to come to Canada? Why would anybody immigrate from Holland to Canada? Why should people wish to leave most of the European countries, particularly those which are now prospering under the European common market and where the employment rate is extremely high? What do we ask of immigrants from those countries? We ask that they be highly skilled. Moreover they

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration must be prepared to settle here and establish themselves without any assistance from the Canadian government. We shall have to be charitable. We shall have to accept people from countries which are less fortunate than those from which the bulk of our immigrants have come in past years. I do not think we will get as many immigrants in the future from Great Britain and other nations which have been the traditional source of our new settlers as we have in the past. We shall be forced to reconsider this present policy which, as everyone knows, discriminates, for instance, against people from the West Indies.
I am as aware as anyone of the problems which attach to bringing in immigrants from the West Indies. I had the experience of helping to bring in a girl for domestic work for a gentleman in Ottawa. When the girl arrived it was found she had never handled an electric stove and was in danger of getting burnt.. She knew nothing about cooking as practised in Canada. Indeed there were many ups and downs in that household before one could call her a domestic servant. And once she was, once she had been trained, she wanted to do something else because she had increased her skill.
We know there are problems. We know the reasons for this reluctance to broaden our immigration policy. But we know also that in certain years, particularly in the peak period of migration to Canada, we opened our doors to arrivals from certain countries because of the need which existed at that time, and as a result of this charitable approach millions have come to Canada, helped to build up the fabric of our country and made a great contribution to our national life.
I must say I did not think the minister would be as broadminded on these matters as he has shown himself to be. I thought he would be a terrible minister of immigration. But I have found out since he took office that he has paid considerable attention to the problems which face him, as they have faced every minister in charge of this department. I pay tribute, too, to the attitude taken by the minister who preceded the hon. gentleman for a short while. This being so, I think there may be a chance of our getting some of the changes we desire. In his approach to this question I hope the minister will bear in mind that this is a house of minorities and that there may be reasonable men sitting in all parts of this chamber. If we could develop an immigration policy of which this parliament could be proud it


would, I think, work for the good of the Canadian people for many years to come, enhancing Canada's stature as a land which took a humanitarian and advanced approach to immigration rather than the archaic ones we have at present.


Mr. Ricard:: I did not intend to speak on the estimates now before the committee, but the fit of hysterics which the hon. republican member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) had a moment ago forces me to take the floor and set the record straight.
Some time ago when the house was considering, if I am not mistaken, the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, I said that the only solution which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) seemed to have in mind was to bring Algerian immigrants into the country and have them settled on farms. I stated then that, in my opinion, it was a very poor way of improving a deplorable situation, for workers should not be brought in to swell the members of those who suffer hardship because of the depressed conditions prevailing in that particular segment of our economy.
Anybody who refers to Hansard of that time will see that I said I was in favour of bringing in French speaking immigrants, that it was even desirable to give this matter more attention than in the past. I never said that I was against French speaking immigrants and, quite the contrary, I would like to see more French speaking immigrants come to Canada. I hope that the present minister will do his utmost in this connection.
Before I resume my seat I think it is important-besides, I feel it would be superfluous on my part to call the attention of the minister to this matter-to exert a close and special control in order to prevent subversive elements from being admitted in this country. The minister certainly has a practical experience of that and I know that he will give this matter all the attention it deserves.
In order to set at rest the mind of the republican from Lotbiniere, I would like to repeat that I am in favour of a rational French speaking immigration, and I am confident that the judgment of the minister rather than the judgment of the hon. member I just mentioned will prevail and that this matter will be dealt with fairly and to the satisfaction of everyone, for the progress of Canada and especially of the province of Quebec.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I intend to make a speech notable for its brevity. I should like to endorse very heartily and warmly the suggestion made by the hon. member for Peace River. I believe the existence of a small parliamentary committee which could review all these immigration cases would, if adopted, be of great benefit to Canada. I think such a committee would assist the minister in the difficult task of administering this department and I urge that it should be adopted.
The other thing I want to say is this. The minister told us that in respect to various amendments of procedures which have been discussed earlier in the house and in this committee, he is consulting a lawyer from Toronto, Mr. Joseph Sedgwick. I do not suppose it is reasonable for us to expect that the details of possible changes in the act or in the regulations can be discussed until Mr. Sedgwick has given his advice to the minister. However, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether he has yet received Mr. Sedgwick's report; if not, when he expects to receive it, and whether it will be made available to members of the house who are much interested in radical reforms in immigration procedures.


Mr. Chapdelaine:: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to add a few words in support of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) concerning the administration and the work of citizenship and immigration officials.
I think there is something quite wrong with the department, especially since the present minister took over. One has the feeling that there is no close co-operation between him and his subordinates.
I am thinking of a case I handled in the riding of Sherbrooke where a certain Mr. Zago has been trying for over two years to get his mother, brother and sister admitted to Canada. At present, those people are in Lebanon and I have been looking after the case personally for more than a year, that is since August, 1963. However, the moment the new minister took over my case was dropped and no one seemed to look after it any more.
I had to write to the department and hand over all my previous correspondence with the officials. It was the same as if there was no file any longer. In fact, I learned recently that the file pertaining to Mr. Zago was in Vienna and that there was nothing more to do.
I did not intend to raise a particular case in the house, because I know that the minister 20220-535}
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration has many of them to consider, but as there were no developments, I decided to do so.
In my opinion, these people are eligible for admission to Canada, because the person who sponsors them is a prominent citizen of the city of Sherbrooke, where he operates a flourishing business; he would like his mother, as well as his brothers and sisters to come to live in Canada.
I feel that this delay might be due to a lack of co-operation within the department. Should it be due to a shortage of staff, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said a while ago, it would be a most opportune time to increase it so that the requests sent to the department should be reckoned with or at least dealt with in some way, for most of the time when we write to the department we have to wait months before getting an answer, even an acknowledgment.
Mr. Chairman, I wished merely to support the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver East, when he said that there was at present a lack of diligence or care in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in regard to the requests we are sending them. [Text]


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Chairman, I hope I can be just as brief as the hon. member for Greenwood. I would like to thank the minister for the information he has given me previously in reply to questions I have asked. I know he has not yet secured all the information which he requires, but I would appreciate it if in his subsequent remarks he would tell me under what section of the Immigration Act the two American strike directors were admitted, or under what regulation, in order that I may pursue this matter if necessary.


Mr. Lalulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments regarding immigration and ways to increase Canada's population.
Should Canada endeavour to increase our population? I think everyone knows the answer to that.
If our population increased we would have more consumers for, as we are all aware, there is no lack of production in Canada. As a matter of fact, the value of production reached $46 billion in 1963 and we barely consumed $3 billion worth. Which means that there is surplus production to be consumed and that Canada can admit additional consumers.
As for immigration, in my opinion the population should be in the first place increased within the country by encouraging

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration families to have children. This should be done by means of social laws and every kind of special assistance that can be given to families.
It is a well known fact that in Canada the birth rate has been decreasing alarmingly. Of course, families could be encouraged to increase our population, within the country itself.
Mr. Chairman, judging from the facts outlined in the Canada Year Book for 1963-64, we find that the Canadian government policy has been to promote the population increase through selective immigration, taking into account the immigrants' adaptability to our North American way of life.
I propose to show that our immigration policy has been almost exclusively one-sided, that is, it has resulted in maintaining the nominal superiority of the English speaking population in most Canadian provinces, wnite giving the impression that the immigration policy of Canada was a sham to allow surplus population from Anglo-Saxon countries to settle here.
Our country has ignored for too long immigrants from the other countries of Europe, Asia and Africa, without mentioning South America. It is a fact that one of the reasons put forward was that it was impossible for several of these people to get used, for instance, to our northern climate. That is a fact which I recognize. However, a number of technicians and experts from those countries have found a haven in the New England states across the border. I have in mind the state of Connecticut in particular, which is one of the most highly industrialized sections of the United States and where the population includes a large proportion of ethnic groups coming from the four corners of the world.
Our immigration policies have not taken into consideration the need for the French community in the country to develop.
Some figures illustrate very well this statement. In 1960, 12,430 Germans arrived in Canada, as compared to 2,940 Frenchmen, that is almost five times more.
It is well known that Germans become an integral part of the English speaking community in Canada.
In 1961, for 2,479 French who entered the country, 15,088 Italians came in and increased the Italo-Canadian population. We are proud of the contribution of these new Canadians to the nation, but we urge the minister to revise his positions and to see to it that the


French speaking population in this country receives a proportionate quota of immigrants.
On the other hand, from 1953 to 1962, 410,460 Canadians, or people whose last place of residence was Canada, left for the United States. If we consider that in 1962, 74,586 people arrived in this country, this means that we need five years of immigration, at the 1962 rate to compensate for such a loss of human resources, of which our country is in great need.
What is even more serious is that the United States drain our best brains, our best skills, and that, in fact, we are catering to the needs of American industry, our country being only a stepping-stone between the country of origin and the country of adoption. People spend some time in this country, and once they have realized our inertia and our lack of determination to take the steps necessary to ensure their future, they leave us for another country where pastures are greener and where unlimited funds are available for research of all kinds, and where promotions and a brighter career seem assured.
From 1953 to 1962, 51,011 Canadians who had settled in the United States came back to Canada. That is a back and forth movement which does not yield anything, except some travelling experience, while our country has to mobilize every effort, to use every skill at full capacity and cannot afford half measures.
This nation, Canada, is still to be developed. Such development will come true only if we have enough brains to put a stop to the erosion of the population. While it is quite all right to open the dam to let people in, at the outlets of the lake, you must have an effective plug to hold in those newcomers.
The level of Canadian immigration must be controlled, but in keeping with the proportions of the ethnic groups without allowing in future such camouflaged control of the French Canadian nation, otherwise the provinces will be justified in demanding exclusive control over immigration in their territory.
If we take a look at South America, at French speaking African countries, at Haiti, we will find people who are anxious to join us.
It is high time for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to adopt modern methods and to do away with narrow ambitions. We cannot afford, in a country with a capacity to feed over 80 millions of men, to have a haphazard approach in this matter and to show once again a lack of understanding and realism.

Especially, must we find the means to keep our immigrants here. I am sure that the U.S. government does not need our services to attract worthy people.
Mr. Chairman, there is an alarming number of Canadians entering the United States. I did not have time to get figures because I just looked up this matter at the last minute, but I know that a large proportion of the people who live in my district emigrate to the United States.
We must find a way to keep our citizens in Canada before planning on bringing in immigrants.
If those Canadians cannot live decently in their own country, a better economic system should be set up so that they would not have to leave.
That is the point I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister and I would ask him to have an investigation carried out concerning Canadian immigration to the United States. I know that the number of French Canadians going to the United States is large enough for the minister to be concerned and to seek a solution.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to prolong this debate on the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I listened very carefully to the minister's presentation on August 14 last on the subject of immigration and I was very pleased with what he said at the time; I am not going to refer to it although I have it before me in Hansard.
The only matter I would like to stress at this time is this. The department seems to have had the intention of bringing to Canada immigrants who are skilled, people with brains, ability and initiative, which is all to the good. But it is my opinion and also the opinion of many others in Canada that what should be done here is to give more opportunity to our own people to obtain such skill and ability, so they could make a better contribution to our economy. Three years ago the legislation we brought in to train the unskilled, and so on, was very helpful, but at the same time I should like to stress the point that the minister consider bringing in other classes of immigrants too. I particularly have in mind unfortunate people who come from iron curtain countries. Although these people may not have the skills the minister is looking for, I think nevertheless they would make good immigrants. From time to time we see press reports to the
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration effect that some of these immigrants with skill and ability just use Canada as a stopover; but I am sure these people from iron curtain countries or even from other parts of Europe, although having no particular skills, would make good immigrants.
I was very much interested in the speech of the hon. member for Peace River, who listed all the contributions made in the past toward developing and opening up our country. We still have many of these areas in Canada which need to be opened up and developed. For this reason I should like to stress very emphatically to the minister that his department also give consideration to bringing into Canada more people who, although they may not have any skill or ability, still have a place in our immigration program and in our great country.


Mr. Barneit:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to participate briefly in this discussion to deal with two points. First of all I should like to make some brief comments on the statement made by the minister in his opening remarks in connection with his visit to Hong Kong; and second I should like to indicate my support of the position advocated by my colleague for Vancouver East.
If I might deal with the second matter first, I noticed that in his earlier report the minister claimed a considerable improvement in the situation with regard to immigration to Canada from Hong Kong since the present government took office. I am not going to enter into any lengthy debate with him on the question as to how far those improvements have gone, but I do thoroughly agree with the contention of the hon. member of Vancouver East that there is still far too much impersonality and sheer inhumanity in the manner in which we are dealing with situations involving people and families so far as immigration from Hong Kong is concerned.
I could give some examples, as did the hon. member for Vancouver East, but I think that the particular examples which he gave were typical enough to illustrate the situation with which he and I as members of this house are confronted, so far as individual human and family situations are concerned. Therefore I will not take time to give any particular instances of my own, but I should like the minister to know that I feel the hon. member for Vancouver East was both factually correct and humanly correct when he advanced his earlier arguments.
I was very interested in the report the minister gave in his opening statement concerning

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration his visit to Hong Kong. I should like to say that both arising out of the very brief opportunity I had of seeing something of Hong Kong last year when on my way to the parliamentary conference in Kuala Lumpur, and as a result of the many discussions I have had with people of Chinese ancestry throughout the years, I honestly felt that the minister had come to some rather sound conclusions and had made some rather sound observations during his visit to Hong Kong. Personally I wish to express my appreciation of the kind of observation he made about the situation. Having said that I certainly wish to urge that the minister really follow through with some action based upon the information he gathered during that visit.
Other members have dealt with other aspects of the matter of Chinese immigration from Hong Kong. I am not going to repeat their statements or arguments but I should like at this time to draw attention to one particular factor that the minister mentioned, and I quote from his statement as found on page 6822 of Hansard:
A serious problem for immigrants in Hong Kong is the necessity to visit various offices for medical tests and examinations. This is tedious, causes long waits and is expensive for the migrants.
I am discussing with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the establishment of a completely integrated "one stop" medical centre in our immigration office in Hong Kong. This would greatly benefit the immigrants.
Arising out of some of the experiences I have had in attempting to assist people with immigration problems I would say to the minister that this would perhaps be the most immediately useful step that could be taken with respect to bringing about some rationality in the arrangements for handling immigration applications in Hong Kong. I think the the minister was being very modest and discreet when he pointed out that as the process has been operated in the past it has been expensive for the immigrants. While the minister did not spell it out, I am quite prepared to suggest that part of that expense has arisen out of a lot of underhanded dealings that have gone on in respect of people being able to secure the necessary medical clearance. In other words, bribery and corruption have been very much involved in the problem of getting the right kind of medical clearance for our immigration authorities in Hong Kong.
Without going into particular cases I can say I have been told stories that I think would horrify any of us. They involve what has happened to some of the people who have

tried to get the necessary medical clearance in order to come to Canada. I am glad that the minister has taken particular note of this problem and proposes to do something about it. If he does not get the fullest co-operation from his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, he can rest assured that he will find support in other quarters of the house.
Finally, before we conclude consideration of the estimates I should like the minister to report on a matter he did not touch on in his opening statement as far as I can recall. I refer to the question of immigration from our sister commonwealth nation, India. Some of us feel that here is one area where there still remain a good many unnecessary restrictions and discriminations. I should like the minister to report to us on his intentions in this connection and tell us what he feels should be done about immigration from that particular part of the world.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, there is one other facet coming under this estimate upon which I sincerely hope the minister will comment. The hon. member for Timiskaming referred to the policy in the past under which Chinese slave labourers were brought to Canada and which was sometimes referred to as the coolie contract system. We all hope those days are gone forever. However, I believe the minister is in a position to clear up certain allegations and rumours that have come to the attention of some of us. There is a rumour that a group of people in the lower mainland of British Columbia have toyed and are toying with the idea of trying to persuade the minister to allow them to bring in Chinese labour from Hong Kong under some kind of landed immigrant status for the purpose of doing backbreaking work in the lower mainland area of British Columbia. These individuals cannot get anybody in British Columbia to do the work, having regard to the conditions and the wages they are prepared to pay. It is further rumoured that a person or persons who should know better are directly or indirectly aiding and abetting the plan to introduce coolie contract labour into Canada. If this is so, I say it is a disgrace and it is disgusting.
I believe we should have an answer now. If these stories are mere rumours, then they should be immediately nipped in the bud, and that can be done by the minister stating whether or not this matter has been brought to his attention. If anything along the lines of the information which has come to my attention in the past few days has been sug-

gested, I should like to know what kind of shrift such a suggestion has received from the minister and what action he has taken.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I would not want, on consideration of estimates relating to immigration, to give a detailed account of the lengthy statement I have already made on the urgent necessity of a progressive and dynamic Canadian immigration policy. I would not want to give a lengthy explanation of the administrative reforms already under way in the department to improve the efficiency of our various immigration offices around the world and also to set up new offices in order to bring into the country the immigrants we need so much.
Therefore, I will not go into the statement I made in the house on August 14 last when the first part of my estimates was considered. This afternoon I will only cover some of the points concerning especially certain hon. members who have suggested the setting up of a committee. First, I would like to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that, like him, we recognize the need to make major amendments to the Immigration Act. It was said that one after the other all ministers of immigration assured the house of the need to amend drastically, even to revise entirely, the Immigration Act. And all the people of Canada, as well as the members of parliament, are still waiting.
If I add my voice to that of all the ministers of citizenship and immigration who preceded me, it is because I hope that, this time, major and essential amendments will be made to the Immigration Act, so that it will better meet the needs of the 20th century and er. [DOT] able Canadians to bring to our country even more immigrants than in the last few years and get them to benefit from the numerous advantages which will result from major amendments to the Immigration Act.
Some members, and in particular the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), have suggested that committees of the house should be set up, or at least a committee on which the various parties of the house would be represented, to study possible amendments to the Immigration Act. I am not going to make an immediate statement on behalf of the government regarding the propriety of establishing such a committee, but I would just like to tell the hon. member for Peace River and the other members who made the suggestion that I would personally like to receive, in one form or another, the suggestions or comments of all members, what-
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration ever their party, regarding the future policy to be followed for immigration.
It is my opinion that, in a field such as immigration, even if the government is responsible and should take the initiative of working out such a policy, the comments and suggestions of the other parties who may represent an important percentage of the population should not be overlooked. The hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned, among other things, the problem of discrimination or alleged discrimination against the West Indies. In this connection, I can say that, contrary to what he thinks, there is no discrimination against the British West Indies. Those people have exactly the same privilege and right to apply for entry in Canada under the existing legislation, but since the same criteria of selection as for any other country in the world are applied, it often happens that people in those areas are unable to complete their studies and they find it difficult to meet the requirements imposed by economic conditions in Canada at the present time. Everybody agrees that in order to adjust yourself to the Canadian economy, which is highly industrialized, you need a minimum of capacity and knowledge. Thanks to that non-discrimination, we have considerably increased the number of immigrants we have been able to bring in from that part of the commonwealth. The number of immigrants from that part of the world in 1961 was 1,126; in 1962, 1,480 and in 1963, 2,200 immigrants.
There seems to be a tendency to increase immigration from that part of the commonwealth. I know that reference is sometimes made to the special program established in 1962 concerning domestic servants who qualify under that program to come to Canada. This should not be misunderstood. Immigration privileges granted to certain groups are over and above those we are offering all residents of other foreign countries. Our selective standards are lowered for special groups in order to help alleviate the shortage of domestics in Canada.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned the special problem of integration of new Canadians. Everybody will admit that, while contributing to preserve the heritage and identity of the various ethnic groups, we in Canada, whatever our nationality may be, will have to make a common effort to develop a Canadian feeling; and it is up to the citizenship branch to develop this feeling.
On the other hand, we may very well admit that each particular group wants to keep its

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration own particular culture and, as tar as our services are concerned, we shall keep up this policy.
I would now like to mention the magnificent speech made by the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard), in which he, first of all, stressed the need for a positive and dynamic immigration, which this government is applying at this time, and second, the need to help the French speaking areas of this country welcome immigrants who would feel more at home in that part of the country than in any other.
Therefore, while our efforts are directed towards several European countries so as to obtain immigrants, I may say that we are paying particular attention to the Italian immigrants, more particularly those who live in certain parts of that country, like the north, which has not yet been regularly covered by our immigration services. And, in the light of what may happen in the next few months, we hope to be able soon to decide whether we should open up a new office, possibly in northern Italy, so as to have some particularly qualified Italians in that area, either in the industrial or in the specialized agricultural fields, come to this country to join the others.
Therefore, I assure the hon. member for Lake St. John that his suggestions will be taken into serious consideration.
I should like to comment on the suggestion by the hon. member for Vancouver East to pay special attention to the very difficult cases that are called sponsorship immigration. The officials of my department recognize that it is essential to establish general rules within which the thousands of requests made by Canadian citizens to bring in their relatives from various countries may be classified and examined.
On the other hand, it is realized that we are dealing with human beings, that we are not dealing with quantities or figures, but with human beings entitled to all the respect due to them, who very often find themselves in special situations because they come from foreign countries or belong to foreign cultures.
Therefore, I can assure the house that the departmental officials will always endeavour to examine sponsorship cases with dispatch and, second to deal with those various cases in a human way.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out, as did some other hon. members, the special problem raised by Chinese immigration. As hon. members know,


we have decided to put an end to the period that elapsed since 1960 in this country, which was called, in the department, the tolerance period for those who had committed infractions of the Immigration Act, but-and I insist on this because this afternoon, I think some hon. members did not quite understand the significance of the decision that was taken -we now have what is called the adjustment period and no date has yet been set to end this adjustment period.
We will decide later, in the light of future developments what action will have to be taken. We know that this adjustment period will have to end some day, but, in the meantime, all those who want to come to our office are free to do so and declare their true identity so that their status might be set straight.
Consequently, this period of adjustment goes on and I ask all hon. members who have contacts with Chinese communities to make all the required efforts so that the magnificent success we have had in the last few weeks, following the extension of the adjustment period will continue and that very soon all Chinese in Canada will be in good standing with the immigration authorities.
When we consider that sufficient time has elapsed, we will put an end to the adjustment period.
At this stage I wish to answer a question which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas) has already put to me. I must tell him that when this adjustment period is to be ended, a waiting period will be established. In this way, some time will elapse between the announcement of the date when the adjustment period will end and the moment when it will actually be terminated.
And now, Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat, I wish to answer two questions asked by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).
First, the hon. member asked me when one might expect to receive the report of Mr. Sedgwick on the procedures used by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as well as by the various courts, with respect to people against whom deportation orders have been issued. I am not in a position to give a specific date at present, but it is hoped that within a month and a half at most, Mr. Sedgwick's report will be received and, as I have already promised, this report will be tabled in the house and made available to all members so that they might submit recommendations later with a view to amending the Immigration Act.

The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Ormis-ton) asked me under which section of the Immigration Act two persons had been admitted in order to carry on their trade in Toronto in relation to trade union activities connected with Toronto's two main daily newspapers. I must tell him that it is under paragraph "H", section 7, of the Immigration Act that those two individuals have been admitted on a temporary basis, in order to perform a specialized trade, recognized as an unprohibited trade, under the Immigration Act.
Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) asked me what the present situation was with regard to India, as far as immigration is concerned. Here is the answer. In 1963, 860 citizens from India came to Canada, that is an increase of 575 compared with 1962.
As far as sponsorship is concerned, immigrants from India are in the same category as those coming from several Asiatic countries where the extension given to bring relatives over here is more limited than in the case of other countries.
On the other hand, special arrangements have been made with India which provide for the coming to Canada of a certain number of relatives, outside the general established rules.
Now, I shall say to the hon. member that I received recently a group of Hindus from British Columbia who submitted to me a report on the immigration problem in their country. I will look into this problem very carefully.


Harold Edward Winch: Can the minister comment about the last intervention I made, concerning an allegation of an endeavour to import cheap labour?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Vancouver East said, we did receive requests from a group of British Columbia farmers to bring over Chinese workers without applying our usual selection standards.
After giving serious consideration to the proposal made to us, I replied a few days ago to the promoters of this project that, while we recognized the real difficulty they encountered in recruiting personnel to operate their various farms, on the other hand, we did not feel justified to make a special exception and lower our selection requirements in regard to that particular group of workers. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 20220-536
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration although we are willing to assist all particular groups who are in need of manpower, we have always insisted that such workers should be sufficiently qualified to be able to find jobs in other places besides the one from which the request originated. Adequate training is essential because they might have to take on a new trade or adapt themselves to new ones, if need be.
Therefore, we felt that this particular project did not deserve special attention and that, if some Chinese people could come, under present regulations, and were interested in working on those farms, they could always do so. But we did not think that we had to give special attention to this request.


David Orlikow: I wonder if the minister would give consideration to the suggestion which implicitly I made earlier, but which explicitly I shall make now, that he meet with the premiers of the West Indian members of the commonwealth to explain Canada's immigration policy with respect to immigration from the West Indies?	.
It creates a bad image for Canada when the premiers of other commonwealth countries, like the one I mentioned previously, have the impression and belief that it is easier for people from southern, eastern and central Europe to come to Canada, even though they are not citizens of the commonwealth, even though in many cases they do not speak English, even though they have not lived in a democratic society, than it is for people from the West Indies.
In my earlier speech I said I was satisfied that the attitude of the department is now much better than it was previously, but it is a serious matter that the political leaders of West Indian countries believe this country still discriminates against them. I do not suggest that the minister meet with these premiers tomorrow, or next week, but maybe this house will have a recess some time, at which stage the minister could make a trip to the West Indies and explain our immigration policy to political leaders there.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I think this suggestion is most interesting, so much so that I have accepted to have lunch next week with the high commissioner of Trinidad, for the exact purpose of discussing the special immigration problems which this particular area of the commonwealth may present, with the idea that, on both sides, better
8460	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration understanding could be reached as far as immigration policies to be applied are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Citizenship-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions for language instruction and citizenship promotion, $1,715,000.
Mr. Gelber:: I should like to say a word about the problem of the adjustment of immigrants in Canada. According to the census of 1961, in the preceding 15 year period one and a half million immigrants came to Canada. Of these, 26 per cent settled in Toronto. I imagine that by now the number of immigrants in Canada must be in the neighbourhood of two million.
The particular problem which interests me is that of the adjustment of Italian immigrants in my own constituency in Toronto. Italian immigrants in my area come largely from small towns. There is not a great sense of community among them and we must always remember they have come to a country where both the customs and the language are strange. It is important that we should pursue an active policy designed to integrate them into the life of Canada. When one considers the history of immigrant communities, particularly in the United States in earlier periods, where problems of juvenile delinquency and crime caused by the failure of social adjustment h, /e been so very serious, it is apparent that >
; have been fortunate in Canada inasmuch a i immigrant communities here have been peaceable and orderly.
Nevertheless I believe we should be actively pursuing policies at the present time designed *o integrate these newer elements into the life of Canada. It is important that a gulf should not arise between the children of immigrants and their parents. Children of course adjust themselves more quickly than older people, and if there is a disruption of the social pattern of the immigrant community there are bound to be social problems such as marked earlier years of this century in many immigrant communities.
It seems to me that schools could help in the integration not only of the children of immigrants but of immigrants themselves. The children should be made to feel that their parents are not centuries away from them. The strangeness of their parents to Canada should not be the means of creating a gulf between the generations. Parents should feel that the schools are sympathetic and happy institutions to which they can turn. I be-


lieve the department should encourage the provincial departments of education to give instruction particularly, I would say, in the Italian language and culture so that parents may feel that our institutions are sympathetic toward the country and the social background from which they came.
There are a number of institutions in my city which are helping to integrate the Italian community. Among these is the international institute of Toronto. I have here an interesting study put out by that institute and prepared by Edith Ferguson. It is called "Newcomers in Transition". The Italian community itself also has an association; the Italian immigrants aid society. The Italian community has grown ten times in extent in the last 15 years and the resources of that society are very modest indeed by comparison with the demands made upon them. Another organization which helps in this field is COSTI. Many immigrants require training, or re-training for special employment, particularly where some disability has prevented an immigrant securing employment in the normal way, and I am pleased that the province of Ontario is to make a grant to the work of COSTI.
This whole problem of immigration and the integration of immigrants would, it seems to me, justify the minister in issuing a white paper to give that leadership which many members of this parliament have urged. The hon. gentleman and his predecessor have given consideration to the problems I have brought to their attention. I was particularly pleased that the previous minister of immigration, now Minister of Justice, should have taken on his staff one of my constituents, Mr. Peter Bosa, a post-war immigrant. I think this is the first time in the history of this country that an immigrant of such recent date has been given responsibility in the administration of this government department.
May I say, in conclusion, that we should not consider the first generation of immigrants to be a lost generation. We should try to maintain cohesion between immigrants of the first and second generations and absorb them both as happily as we can into the fabric of Canadian society.


Reynold Rapp: I have a brief comment to make on this particular subject. I believe it is not sufficient for a new immigrant to know the language of the country when he applies for citizenship. I think it is important he should know a little of the history of Canada, particularly when there are two languages in this country of equal status.

Most people coming to Canada know there is freedom of speech and that a man can speak in any language he pleases. But they should know too that the English and French languages are in a special position and may be spoken on an equal basis. This information should in my opinion be made available to immigrants when they apply for their papers, possibly in the form of a pamphlet or brochure.


Francis Andrew Brewin: We have heard a good deal about procedures in respect to immigration.
I wish now to say something about procedures in respect to applications for citizenship.
I want to urge the minister to look at the Canadian Citizenship Act and bring in amendments to it as well as to the Immigration Act.
It was said in a debate in the United Kingdom parliament that the test of a civilized country is its behaviour toward its citizens whatever their race, religion or colour. I suggest an even more searching test is the behaviour of a community toward aliens, particularly to those who are not legally or formally members of the community at all. Surely the time has come for us to scrutinize carefully the procedures by which aliens resident in Canada are admitted to the full privileges of citizenship. To refuse a person citizenship does not entail only legal disabilities. It involves in many cases a threat to livelihood; it might cause bitterness and lifelong resentment and place a stigma either real or imagined upon the character of the person to whom citizenship has been refused.
At the present time the procedures adopted under the Canadian Citizenship Act are in my view altogether unsatisfactory and give rise in many cases to unsatisfactory results. Section 10 of the act provides that an applicant for citizenship has a double barrier to overcome. First of all he has to satisfy a court- usually, I believe, a county or district court- of a number of things, including the fact that he is of good character. When he has done this and the court is satisfied in respect of these matters, he has the second barrier to overcome, namely that the minister under the act has an absolute, uncontrolled and unfettered discretion to grant or refuse citizenship, even if the court is satisfied about the applicant.
In refusing citizenship the minister does not have, because it is a matter of discretion, to state in any way the reason for his refusal. Those who have been familiar with these matters over the years-and I make no complaint 20220-5361
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration about the present minister at all; it is the procedure I am complaining about-have had cases of people who have been denied citizenship and then not told the reason why. Then when they inquire into the matter they very often find citizenship has been refused because of some sort of misinformed police report. Perhaps there was a report of some earlier association with a so-called radical or subversive organization. This undisclosed reason is thought to be sufficient ground for depriving an applicant of citizenship.
I am not saying that if these matters came to the attention of the enlightened minister this situation would prevail; but because of the system this sometimes happens. We have all heard of many cases of these so-called security reasons being given as a basis for refusal of citizenship, when really they do not make any sense at all. I myself had the case of a gentleman

I will not name him here- who has since been granted citizenship by a predecessor of the minister. However, before that he was refused citizenship. This particular man was a world famous town planner; a consultant to two metropolitan areas; an adornment of the staff of one of our great universities. This gentleman was refused citizenship. He was not told why, first of all; but on the matter being pressed and an investigation being carried out it turned out that he had at one time been a resident of Soviet Russia, where he has carried out some of his professional work. In fact, he had been expelled from that country because he did not get along with the totalitarian regime there. However, when he came back to this country he was still a great believer in good relations between the U.S.S.R. and Canada and he joined some Canada-Soviet friendship organization; I believe he was a member of an organization called the Canadian Peace Congress and was active in that body. He made no bones about it; he was perfectly frank, open and aboveboard. This gentleman was for many years-not under the present regime-refused citizenship. I say in all fairness that the predecessor of the present minister reviewed the matter and changed the decision, with the good sense one would anticipate from the former minister and from the present minister.
But my point is that the system that was in effect excluded this man from citizenship for many years, and it was only after fairly forceful representations by a number of prominent citizens that this case was able to be reviewed. But what about the humbler person who is refused citizenship perhaps because he
84G2	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration belonged away back to some labour union that was accused of having a communist tinge to it, or something like that? And what of a person who does not have the power or influence to deal with these things and seeks to have a decision reversed?
I suggest to the minister that the present process should be reversed and the minister and his officials should be given, in the primary instance, the responsibility of deciding whether citizenship should be granted or refused, as in the case of immigration. I suggest they should be required, in the course of normal and fundamental justice and the rights enshrined in the bill of rights, and so on, to give, if they are going to refuse admission, the reason for so doing. If it is some deep dyed security source, perhaps they do not need to disclose the source. We have discussed that before and I do not want to go into detail. If citizenship is refused, then is the time to go, by way of appeal, to some tribunal. It might be the same tribunal that I hope the minister is going to set up in connection with immigration; it could be an immigration and citizenship appeal tribunal.


David Orlikow: It could be similar to the one for government employees, although I hope it would be better.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, this would be an independent tribunal. I am not satisfied that the county court judges are in themselves the best people to deal with these matters. We have just had an illustration of one county court judge whose judgment did not seem to be too sound in this sort of matter. But if you had a tribunal composed of people who were chosen by reason of their sympathy, experience and understanding of these matters, which would review not one case but all cases, if there was some reason to doubt the decision of the minister in his discretion and if the person refused citizenship wanted to question the minister's refusal, he could go to this tribunal. This would reverse the present procedure, which I suggest does not make a great deal of sense; it does not make any sense to have the judge give his judgment first with a regard to a limited number of things and then to give the minister power to completely disregard that judgment without any reason being given. I suggest that this basic section of the act should be looked at very carefully by the minister, and when he is considering amendments to the Immigration Act he should also consider amendments to the citizenship act.


I believe, Mr. Chairman, that if time permitted I could give many instances of where this procedure would render a measure of justice that does not exist at the present time. I do not propose to take time to do that, but I believe that other members could tell the minister and his predecessors of many instances of refusal of citizenship where such matters should properly have been the subject of judicial review. My hon. friend the member for Hamilton South desires to question the minister in respect of a case that has received a good deal of attention recently. I refer to the Bergsma case in Hamilton. In that case, as we know, a judge apparently refused citizenship, or refused to say that a man was of good character because he refused to take an oath, on conscientious grounds as I understand it.
I would like to ask the minister-we have had some discussion of this case-whether he would like to make a statement to the committee as to whether the injustice to this individual is to be remedied, and what he suggests is a remedy that would see that this particular couple are not refused citizenship on grounds which have no substance whatever, and indeed are obviously inconsistent with the bill of rights.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I most certainly want to add a few words with regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Greenwood on one phase of this estimate. This is a matter about which I cannot speak in as restrained a manner as the hon. member, because I am really burned up about it. I refer to the granting of citizenship. Over the past few years I have had a number of cases and I have found there is absolutely no difference in policy under the present minister when compared with the policies of his predecessors. I think one of the policies of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is a disgrace to so-called Canadian democracy and should disgust everyone who believes in democracy. I refer to the principle that allows a person to be found guilty without trial; to be found guilty without a hearing; to be found guilty without a charge being laid; to be found guilty without the applicant concerned even knowing what the charge is. That has been the situation in the past, and it is the damnable situation that exists at the present time.
Even this year I have been battling over the months with the minister with regard to the granting of two certificates of citizenship to people in my own constituency. Both were recommended by the court for citizenship.

Both applicants had resided in my constituency for many years. One was of European ethnic origin, and the other of Chinese ethnic origin who first went to the United States and then came to Canada and has resided in Canada for many years. Both have professional status but have been denied citizenship by the minister's department.
What happens, Mr. Chairman, when these people want to know why they are refused and are given no reason? They do what 1 think is the logical and natural thing to do

they take it up with their member of parliament. These two applicants got in touch with me and said: "We have been recommended for citizenship. We have no knowledge of any wrongdoing. We are told it is not going to be granted, or that there will be a delay for one year". As their member of parliament I take up their case with the minister's department and I ask why they have been turned down. Correspondence goes back and forth; the minister writes me, I write him back and on we go. Then finally I receive letters in connection with each of these cases which say they are being held over for a review in one year's time, and the letters go on to say: "Of course, Mr. Winch, you know we cannot tell you the reason why".
I think something is definitely wrong when in a democratic country like Canada a person who, as far as he knows, is completely eligible for citizenship, is told by the minister he is not going to get it, that it is going to be postponed for one year and then reviewed, and is not told why, or whether any charge is made against him. Not only the applicant but his member of parliament is also told exactly the same thing. Of course the constituent blames his member of parliament for not being able to solve his problem or to find out what is the difficulty. I maintain that this is and has been a disgraceful situation. A person should know the reason why his case is held over. If something is wrong, surely the person concerned has the right to say whether it is true or false, and if it is false to demonstrate it is false. But as it is it hangs over him like a shadow and he cannot be blamed for wanting to know what kind of democratic country he has arrived in.
Another case I have been handling for months now concerns a woman who does not even want her name mentioned. As a matter of fact, she does not even want anything more to do with the matter. But her neighbours are more incensed than she is and I am almost being deluged with letters from these neighbours who maintain that this appli-
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration cant is a wonderful person, that there is none better, and they hold me responsible to do something about it or at least to give them an answer. But I cannot do so.
Now, Mr. Chairman, surely this is a wrong procedure to adopt and a wrong attitude to take. It certainly is not democratic and is an out-and-out totalitarian dictatorship policy, and the policy of a police state. I contend that it is absolutely incumbent on each and every one of us to exercise every bit of influence on the minister to have this despicable policy changed, and changed immediately.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, although these are not my estimates a question was raised in the house the other day which led to discussion between the minister and myself and I should like to deal with it very shortly at this point, if I may. It concerns the case of Mr. and Mrs. Bergsma, who are man and wife. The question was raised in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Hamilton South.
I think there is no question in the Bergsma case that an application for citizenship was refused because the Bergsmas refused to take the oath. What happened in this case, if my interpretation is correct, was that in the course of examining the two applicants the county court judge, who was sitting as a citizenship court, elicited from them an answer to the effect that they did not believe in God. Then presumably the county court judge said-I am not certain this is what happened but he probably said something like this-"If you don't believe in God then you won't be able to take the oath". However, the basis of his decision was that, in his opinion, because these persons happened to be atheists they could not be said to be of good character, which is a finding conditional upon which an application may or may not be granted by the minister under section 10 of the citizenship act. Therefore the matter never reached the minister, and will not reach the minister under the act unless some way is found to reopen the case in the citizenship court, or unless application is made after two years from date of refusal, which as the committee knows is the minimum period which must elapse between the denial of an application by the court and the filing of a new application.
As we are discussing this case in a very frank manner sitting as members trying to find the truth, may I say that it is my opinion, not as Minister of Justice but as a member of the bar-I am not giving any interpretation here of the meaning of a person of good character in section 10 of the act-that on the assumption that the judge was wrong in law

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in deciding that a person may not be said to be of good character under section 10 of the act if the person concerned is an atheist, the judge concerned, or more precisely the citizenship court, may be directed to apply the law according to the interpretation which a higher court seized with the case would say is the right interpretation.
Hon. members may know of the decision of the supreme court of Canada in the Leon Ba Chai case, where the wife of an immigrant was refused landing permission by an inquiry officer under the Immigration Act on the basis that, she being a concubine, and he having another wife, she was not a wife within the law of Canada. The supreme court stated that under the regulations as they stood at the time, a legal wife was one who was a legal wife under the law of the country of the applicant. It was found that in China, if I remember correctly, if a husband took full responsibility for a concubine and their children then she was deemed to be a lawful wife.
The Supreme Court of Canada ordered the immigration officer in making his decision to apply the law in accordance with the correct legal interpretation stated in the supreme court judgment. Assuming that the interpretation was wrong in this instance, and I do not pass judgment on that, this would appear to be a relatively similar case.
All I want to say before taking my seat is that if I had an opinion to submit as a private citizen or as a member of the house I would say that the fact of a person professing not to be a follower of one given religion or another, or of any religion, ought not to be taken as an indication that the person so stating or so professing is not a person of good character.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether I might comment on the minister's statement. I thank him for it and assure him that his words will reach the people concerned. I agree with his suggestions and views in the matter, and I would hope that if and when the case comes to be disposed of the representatives of the government who will appear in the case will be of the same view as the minister.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being five .o'clock shall I rise, report a certain resolution and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house, or later this day as the case may be?


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the committee would allow us to proceed in order to complete the estimates
[Mr. Favreau.)
of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Herman Maxwell Batten: If there is to be any
discussion with regard to whether or not the committee should proceed beyond five o'clock it might be better procedure to do so with the Speaker in the chair.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When
shall the committee have leave to sit again, later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be?


Some hon, Members:: Now.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think it is in order for me to report to you that by arrangement made with the house leaders of the various parties this afternoon private members' hour will be waived, and it would therefore be in order to pursue the discussion in committee of supply.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting to the present suggestion, but I do want to say that I consider it is poor practice for members to continue to give up private members' hour. It is one of the few opportunities available to members to bring forward their bills and I hope this practice will not be continued.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the
house agree to go into committee of supply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Citizenship-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions for language instruction and citizenship promotion, $1,715,000.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise at this time to add my voice to the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Greenwood with respect to the subject of citizenship. I must say at the outset that I have not had the difficulties that the hon. member for Vancouver East seems to have had.
Last year I went to the former minister of
citizenship and immigration with the case of a young man who had applied for citizenship, had been turned down by a previous minister and was applying again. Apparently he had

been turned down because at the age of 18, some 15 years earlier, he had belonged briefly to a fraternal organization which has been classified as being sympathetic to the communist party. I am not going to discuss now the question of whether it was properly classified.
I made representations to the minister about the case. I submitted to the minister letters from people who had known the young man in recent years in which they made it very clear that for a number of years he had not had any sympathy with communist ideas. The former minister considered the matter. It was still being considered when the present minister took office. I am happy to thank the former minister and the present minister for the fact that this young man was granted Canadian citizenship. But, Mr. Chairman, surely it is not important whether a particular member of parliament, no matter to what party he belongs or where he may sit in the house, who has a problem brought to his attention, gets a favourable decision from this minister or any other minister.


Harold Edward Winch: I will give you all my cases from now on.


David Orlikow: I am quite happy to have the hon. member for Vancouver East look after his own cases. It seems to me that the right to citizenship is a very important right and that there are principles involved which we need to look at very carefully in the light of present conditions. I am not certain that the government would accept the fairly radical proposal made by the hon. member for Greenwood a few minutes ago, that a person should be presumed to be innocent until the people who accuse him can produce evidence that he is guilty. I know this is a cardinal principle of British justice, but it is one which it seems to me we ignore more and more as the years go by. But it does seem to me that a number of very simple principles should be embodied in our citizenship law and regulations, and applied in the administration thereof.
It seems to me that a person who applies for citizenship and is turned down should, as a most elementary form of justice, be given the reasons why his application has been turned down. I know that sometimes security matters are involved, and I am not saying that I agree with some people who have said that not only should the person be given the reasons why he has been turned down but he should have the right to be confronted by
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration his accuser. I think members of the house will know that I have some slight reservations about the work of the R.C.M.P. in certain fields, but obviously if they or any other security agency have secret sources of information it would be ridiculous to expect them to come forward and confront the person who is having difficulty.
But I see no reason, Mr. Chairman, why a person who is being turned down for citizenship ought not to have the right to be given a general reason, because there have been cases in which mistakes were made. There have been cases of mistaken identity and cases where important changes in a person's thinking, for example, have taken place. Unless a person knows the reason he is being turned down, he cannot correct the misinformation upon which the department or the minister may be basing a decision.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that there ought to be an appeal procedure. This appeal ought to be to people who are not employees of the department, people who are separate from the department, and possibly people who have legal training. These people could look at the particular question in an impartial manner. I think it is only natural when a case goes step by step through a department for the departmental officials to lean rather heavily in favour of people who are working in the same department. It seems to me that there must be an independent tribunal established to hear cases, to get all the information and make a decision on that basis.
I should like to discuss one other point which I raised last year and which I know has been raised by other members. I do this despite the fact the people about whom I am going to talk have not come to me. I represent a constituency which, for many years, has had a large percentage of people who voted communist. It is a constituency in which a high percentage of people have come from eastern countries. They do not come to me very often with their problems because most of my political life, Mr. Chairman, I have been fighting communists. I do so now and I am sure that I will continue to do so in the future. I know that many of them in Winnipeg, in Toronto, in Port Arthur and other cities, having been here for more than 20 or 30 years, have applied for citizenship repeatedly and have been turned down. This simply results from the fact that they are, or even worse, Mr. Chairman, that they were at some point 10 or 15 years ago, members of the communist party or members of organiza-

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration tions close to the communist party, like the Ukrainian farmer-labour temple association- I think it is now called the workers benevolent association.
It seems to me ridiculous that we take this view. I am not thinking now of people who may be leaders in the communist party, because I am sure that the leaders of the communist party in Canada are all people who are citizens of or who were born in Canada. If a person were a member of the communist party 10 or 20 years ago, an ordinary person living in a city or town in Canada, and we turn him down for citizenship solely for that reason in 1964, it seems to me we only do so because we have very little faith in the basic strength of our democratic institutions. It seems to me ridiculous that this should continue. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to changing the standards or the principles which he uses in deciding this kind of thing.
I am not going to mention any names because they did not ask me to intercede for them. However I am thinking of two very prominent scientists, one in an eastern city and one in a western city. I am not going to be any more specific than that. They are eminent in their field and are doing very important scientific research which is very heavily subsidized by Canadian government agencies. They have been in Canada for much more than the required period of time and were landed immigrants, but up until this time have not had their applications for Canadian citizenship approved. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that this is, to say the least, pretty shortsighted thinking on the part of the department. It seems to me that if we are going to live by those principles of democracy in which all of us in this house profess to believe, we ought to have confidence that our democratic way of life has the strength to stand up against a few who may be in this country who do not believe in it, but who believe in a different kind of society.
I noticed the hon. member for Regina City asked some questions about a professor from the Soviet union who is teaching this year in, I think, Regina college. The Winnipeg Free Press, with which I do not often agree, had a very good editorial in which they discussed this matter and in which they pointed out, I think rightly, that one professor who happens to be a communist from the Soviet union will surely not poison the minds or change the minds of many Canadian university students.
I think the same thing applies with regard to citizenship, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe


that if a few communists or ex-communists who are not citizens, who have been in Canada a long period of time, apply for citizenship which everybody undoubtedly gets unless he has committed a serious crime, they are going to hurt our democratic society. I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to rethinking and changing the policy which we have had in this country for many years.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I only want to take a couple of minutes of the committee's time to draw again to the attention of the minister a problem that has been discussed at length by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I do not advocate that there should be such a change in security regulations, that is regulations respecting security in Canada, that we do in fact take action that we may regret later. I do believe there are some cases, and I have one in mind, in which there has been injustice done in rejecting the application for citizenship. I simply cannot find justification for the grounds which may have been used in rejecting the application for citizenship. I should like the minister to know I have written him again today a private letter giving the name and some of the conditions, as I see them, connected with this application. I also want him to know this application for citizenship has been approved for the fourth time by the district court, and I hope he gives it reconsideration and, perhaps, a favourable response.
One thing I fail to understand in rejecting this kind of application for citizenship is that if this particular individual were doing something against Canada's national interests, there are provisions in our laws whereby we could deal with him effectively whether he is a citizen or not. Some of these people have been in the country for 30, 35 and 40 years, and if through that period of time there has been no record of engaging in subversive acts and there is some question as to the validity of the substance of the allegations, this should be taken into consideration.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, except I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North make a statement to which I hope the minister will reply. I do not want to misquote the hon. member for Winnipeg North, but I understood him to say that no serious damage would result if a university professor, who was an avowed communist, poisoned the minds of a few students under his direction.


David Orlikow: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I of course do not have the Hansard of what I just said in front of me, but I do not think that I spoke so loosely that I said it would not be serious if a few minds were poisoned. I certainly did not intend to say that. What I intended to say, and what I say right now, is that I do not believe the fact that a professor from the Soviet union will be teaching at Regina college-with which decision I had nothing to do-will change the minds of any students at Regina college, or anywhere else.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did not know to whom the hon. member was referring. As I say, I hope I have not misquoted him, but I jotted down that phrase about its not being a serious matter if the minds of a few students were poisoned-or words to that effect. I hope the hon. member will check the Hansard record and make himself clear, because the real danger arises from what university professors might do to impressionable minds. I think the hon. member perhaps was not as careful in his use of language as he might have been.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was sitting right in front of the hon. member for Winnipeg North while he was speaking and I am quite certain he did not use the words as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


David Orlikow: I would like to say I only used the illustration of the professor who will be teaching this year at Regina college to buttress my argument with regard to the citizenship rights of people who have been here for many years. Obviously the decision regarding the coming of the professor to Regina college was made by the university authorities at Regina. I do not know whether any federal agencies were consulted and gave their approval or not. I certainly knew nothing about it, was not asked for an opinion, and gave no opinion. In fact I did not express an opinion until he was on the job.
Even though I was not asked for an opinion I reiterate that I do not think a mistake was made by inviting him, because I presume a Canadian professor went to the Soviet union to teach in a university there. I have enough faith in the young people of Canada to believe that they will not suddenly become communist because one professor of economics, or a professor in any other field, is teaching at a Canadian university.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister inform the committee why the applications for citizenship in the numerous cases that have been mentioned this afternoon are refused, when a former Liberal government gave Canadian citizenship to four French citizens who belonged to the German gestapo, who had been sentenced to death by the French courts, and against the protest of the French ambassador of the day?


Erik Nielsen: To say nothing of Hal Banks.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 5 carry?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister explain the reason for the different approach to these problems?


Gordon Minto Churchill: While the minister is contemplating his answer I would hope, Mr. Chairman, I could say with regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North that I was making no reference whatever to anybody who was being employed at any university. In fact he had not mentioned that case earlier. I was making no comment on that. I was simply commenting on his use of language with regard to impressionable students.


Frank Howard: Maybe hon. members will wonder why we make reference to something that happened in 1935, but it is necessary to give us a background appreciation of the difficulties that confront people of Chinese origin in their relations with the department of which the minister is head.
In 1935 in advertisements in newspapers in Vancouver-and I have seen them-the Liberal party published as part of its election campaign a promise to the people of the west coast to stop the yellow hordes from China and other Asiatic countries coming into Canada. One of the members of the Senate, Hon. Senator Reid, was a Liberal candidate at that time and was elected as a member under that sort of promise.
Anybody now looking back to that would think it was a disgusting and disgraceful policy for a political party to have, namely a policy of a campaign based purely and simply on raw, naked, racial discrimination. That is only one of the contributing factors to the difficulties which Chinese people have had for the past few years, and still have in their attempts to get some reasonably fair treatment from the government and the department on their immigration problems and citizenship matters. I think there has been a very unfair and unkind harassment by the
8468	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration department of people of Chinese origin, both under the present minister and his immediate three or four predecessors.
A couple of years ago I made some inquiries about the number of people of Chinese origin who had had their citizenship certificates delayed in transmission to them after they had passed the appropriate examinations, and it transpired that there was an inordinately long delay, in some cases ranging up to three years, between the time these people had passed their examinations and the time the citizenship certificates were transmitted to them. Subsequent to that I asked for some information covering part of the period of time during which this government has been in office. I asked how many certificates had been granted to people of Chinese origin for each month since July 1, 1962-this was up to and including December 18 of last year-and what period of time elapsed between the passing of the examination for citizenship before a judge and the actual issuance of the certificate. In normal cases this is a relatively short period-a month, or something of that nature. But with respect to the Chinese people, during the period from July 1, 1962, to the end of September, 1963, there were 1,698 citizenship certificates granted, and one of these certificates had been delayed for a period of six years. Six years had elapsed between the time this person passed his examination and the time he received the certificate. Five of the individuals concerned had to wait more than five years. Seven of them had to wait for more than four years. Eighty five of them had to wait more than three years before certificates were given to them, and 42 per cent of the total had to wait for longer than a year before receiving their certificates. As I say, the delay is normally a matter of weeks or months.
The information I have just given reflects the extent of the harassment, the extent of the unfairness which is displayed toward people of Chinese origin, not only with respect to their attempts to come to Canada in the first place but after they have indicated their desire to remain in this country by applying for citizenship so as to become Canadians in the full sense of the word. Even after they have passed the examinations there is delay, further investigation and procrastination in the minister's department before these people are granted the piece of paper they have spent so many years seeking to obtain. I think this situation is a disgraceful blot upon the operations of a department of government which deals with human beings-


a department which I for one would like to see eliminated at the earliest possible date.
I have drawn attention to the Liberal campaign policy of 1935 which was based on racial discrimination against people of Chinese origin merely to show that in the past, even before 1935, it has been the official policy of government to adopt a different attitude toward people who were born in Asian countries. This is one of the reasons why these people encounter the difficulties they now experience. It is one of the reasons the department appears to pay an undue amount of attention in a discriminatory way to people of Chinese origin. The minister's predecessor, who is now the Minister of Justice, received a brief almost a year ago to the day, on September 23, 1963, in the Hotel Vancouver in Vancouver, British Columbia-a brief from the Chinese Canadian citizenship association presented by Mr. Foon Sien who was at that time national executive secretary and special representative of the Chinese Canadian citizenship association. In this brief the association made extensive observations about the interpretation of the regulations as they existed then and as they exist now, pointing out that there is discrimination in the application of the regulations. This matter has been dealt with at great length by my hon. friend from Greenwood. The presentation also contained a request for a changed attitude by the government in relation to immigration matters.
I realize we are not dealing with this particular item at the moment so I will not discuss it further, except to say that briefs of this sort affecting people of Chinese origin have in the past been presented to governments on what is virtually an annual basis, each of them saying in effect the same thing, namely that the policy of the government as it relates to people of Chinese or Asiatic origin is different from the policy followed in relation to people coming from other parts of the world.
Even though I do not have any immediate hopes he will be able to accomplish this with the speed and alacrity many would like to see, I ask the minister to look into the citizenship section of this department and ascertain why it is that people of Chinese origin have had to wait in some instances for five and six years between the time they indicate their desire to become Canadian citizens and the time they are given the official document saying they have been accepted. One could discuss this question at great length. In essence, this discrimination exists and it has

permeated all the activities of the department. The only person who could change it is the minister. I hope he has the desire to make these alterations. I hope he will announce at some early date in the future that the policy and the real practice in his department will be to treat all people of whatever origin on the basis of equality. If this were done it would not be necessary to go through the same discussion in later years that we have had this afternoon.


David Orlikow: I tried to follow the explanation of the Minister of Justice as to what took place in the Eergsma case as well as a nonlawyer can. May I express the hope that Bergsma will take the necessary steps to acquire citizenship. I am concerned about the possibility that the same thing will happen again in the future and I wonder whether the minister will consider issuing a directive to the citizenship courts making it clear that the question of the religion or non-religion of an applicant is not a factor in reaching decisions as to citizenship, and second that it should not enter into a formulation of character.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I would have been interested to hear the minister make some comment on the matters just raised by the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Winnipeg North. However, apparently he does not wish to make a reply at the moment. I would like to recall to the minister's mind that when these estimates were previously under consideration I asked him a question concerning the part of the vote which I pointed out has the high-sounding title of grants for citizenship promotion. I mentioned then that it is proposed to increase this grant to $75,000 from the previous year's $37,000. I asked the minister whether this was the item in which was included provision for grants toward the establishment, maintenance and operation of Indian friendship centres; and if so, how much of it was proposed to be allocated for that purpose, and what amounts and in what ways other expenditures in the promotion of citizenship were to be made under this grant.
I did express the view that it did not seem a very large amount for the most important purpose suggested in the description of the vote. The minister said he did not have that information available at the time but that he would get it for me. I am wondering whether he has it now.


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have the information for which the hon. member
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration asked last time. This sum of $75,000 is requested to provide: (1) $30,000 in sustaining grants to major national organizations working in fields most closely related to the aims of the citizenship branch, namely the Canadian citizenship council and the Indian-Es-kimo association of Canada; (2) $20,000 for the payment of grants to voluntary organizations in the field of citizenship promotion; and (3) $25,000 for the support of community projects, mainly friendship centres, related to the integration of Indians off the reserve.
This sum does not include the work undertaken by the citizenship registration branch to promote citizenship with regard to newcomers to Canada and their application for citizenship papers, nor does it include the language and citizenship classes available in many evening classes throughout Canada.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In that connection, Mr. Chairman, could the minister explain to us where in the estimates we find the amounts which are spent through the registration branch in these other fields of citizenship promotion that he mentioned? Is this specifically set out, or is it merely part of some other general vote?


René Tremblay: There is no specific item on that, Mr. Chairman. It is the responsibility of each citizenship court, and it is under the item concerning citizenship courts.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the minister a further question, Mr. Chairman. He mentioned, if I heard him correctly, that the allocation out of this amount of $75,000 toward the functioning of Indian friendship centres was $25,000.


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is $25,000.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the minister whether this amount of $25,000 is designed merely to cover the federal assistance toward existing friendship centres, or is there any provision in this amount which would allow grants to be made toward any new centres which might be developed during the period of the fiscal year which this item covers?


René Tremblay: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have a certain amount that is not allocated to friendship centres which exist, and we have provision, if there are new requests, to give grants to such projects.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not answered-or if he did, I did not understand the answer-the questions asked with regard to the Bergsma case. I did not
8470	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration think it would take very long to give an explanation in this regard, because as far as I can tell hon. members of all parties who have commented on this case are agreed that the difficulty that arose with regard to the Bergsmas should not have arisen. I have read editorials in four or five Canadian newspapers on the matter. All the Toronto newspapers carried editorials dealing with the case and they were all unanimous that the Bergsmas should not, on the basis of information which is available, have had any difficulty in getting their citizenship papers. It seems to me that the committee ought to have some simple statement from the minister as to the steps the department thinks it can take and what steps it will take to try to ensure that the same situation will not arise again in the future with regard to other people.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that I am just as concerned as he and other hon. members are with the problem raised when, through a judgment of the court, the Bergsma couple were refused the right to obtain their Canadian citizenship because they had stated they did not belong to any religion.
I am glad, therefore, in co-operation with my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), to take all necessary steps so that persons who do not profess any religion in Canada may not find themselves in a situation where they could be refused their citizenship certificates, even if the application of such a policy, in future, should involve bringing certain amendments to the citizenship act.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would make some comment on the references to delays in transmitting citizenship certificates to people of Chinese origin after they have passed the examination. There have been complaints about the inordinately long period of time it takes to receive these certificates. I would also ask the minister to comment on this situation. It is my understanding that people who apply for Canadian citizenship and have their applications rejected are not given the reasons for such rejection. Would the minister tell the committee whether there is any intention on the part of the government to change this policy and give people the reasons why they are not acceptable as Canadian citizens.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I must tell the hon. member that there has been no ques-


tion of racial discrimination in the case of applications for citizenship from Chinese people.
If, as the hon. member has pointed out, there have been fairly long delays in many cases where Chinese applicants were involved, that is because, as he very well knows, serious irregularities have occurred in the past few years where Chinese immigration is concerned; this frequently involves investigations that last for months on end before the status of some Chinese person who wants to get his citizenship certificates can be cleared up.
As far as the administration of the department is concerned, I can assure the house that I shall order my officials to speed up as much as possible the handling of individual cases. We have no intention of discriminating against potential Chinese immigrants.
Coming now to the extremely delicate problem of the final information the minister must secure before granting a certificate of citizenship I should like to say to the hon. member that since the present government has taken over, we have been actively considering all the implications of the final information the minister must get before granting either citizenship or the status of a landed immigrant, and I hope it will be possible to improve substantially the methods used until now in that respect.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the other day as an aside the hon. member for Lapointe asked the Prime Minister whether or not it would be desirable for ministers to reply to questions in the same language in which they were asked, and the Prime Minister said yes, it seemed to him a reasonable suggestion.
I would merely point out that that did not happen just now, and quite frankly I disagree with the contention of the Prime Minister that it was a reasonable suggestion. As far as I am concerned if any hon. member, especially the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, desires to speak in English or French then that is his prerogative and right and it should be respected. I think the Prime Minister was in error the other day in saying that it was a commendable suggestion.


William Moore Benidickson: I think he meant a written question.


Frank Howard: There was no indication that it was a written question whatever. The suggestion was to answer questions in the language they were asked in order to assist members. Whether they were written or oral is immaterial. I think this just proves the point that the Prime Minister once again was

wrong in being so ready to agree to something because it seemed the agreeable thing to do.
When I initially posed my question I did not indicate, or at least I did not intend to indicate, that the delays in transmitting certificates of citizenship to people of Chinese origin were based on an attitude of racial discrimination. What I said was that in the past there has been racial discrimination as the announced policy of the hon. gentleman's party, especially in 1935. Governments in the past have had an attitude toward people from Asia which is based purely on racial discrimination. Because this has existed in the past and was publicly announced as the declared policy of my hon. friend's party, albeit some 30 years ago, this is why Chinese people have the difficulties they have today in immigration matters and also in the granting of certificates of citizenship.
However, I do not imply that there does exist today an attitude of racial discrimination, and that this is why the certificates were being delayed in their transmission. It is merely the result of racial discrimination as the announced policy of my hon. friend's party some years ago, and also the result of the continued discrimination which exists in the citizenship regulations which the hon. member for Greenwood and others in this party have pointed out a number of times in the past.


Harold Edward Winch: May I say how pleased I am to hear the minister state a few moments ago that he hopes that marked improvements are going to be made in all phases of the granting of citizenship certificates. I sincerely hope that these marked improvements will be speedily brought into effect and that the first ones to be dealt with will be the cases he has been holding up which I have brought to his attention over the months.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Vancouver East I was very interested in the announcement of the minister that some changes are going to be made with respect to the approach toward citizenship applications. I would pose to him what might be described as a theoretical or hypothetical question.


Frank Howard: You will get a hypothetical answer.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Let me tell the minister that I will refer him to an actual situation regarding a citizenship application with which I had the unhappy experience of dealing a number of years ago when one of his
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration predecessors was in office. I should like to ask the minister, if this case were brought before him today, what would be his attitude toward it.
This case is one where a woman had applied for Canadian citizenship. She had come to Canada as a young woman with one child from a part of the world which now is known as Yugoslavia. Her husband had preceded her here and after he had become established to the point where he was able to do so, he brought over his wife with their first child who had been born after he had come to Canada. The rest of their family were all born in Canada. The husband had applied for and had been granted Canadian citizenship. Under the mistaken assumption that when he became a Canadian citizen she also became a Canadian citizen she had never made any formal application for citizenship. All her children are Canadians. The point in time was reached when she had grandchildren who are Canadians. Yet when she discovered that actually she was not officially a Canadian she made application, and her application was rejected, not once but two or three times. In each case she had to wait for a two year interval to elapse before reapplying.
I should like the minister to tell us whether the change in attitude which he has indicated will take place will be such that this woman, the only member of the whole family not a Canadian and who has spent two thirds of her life in Canada, will have no difficulty in getting her citizenship certificate.


René Tremblay: I will be very glad to take a decision in this case on Monday, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian Affairs-[DOT]
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including expenditures on works on other than federal property, grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, recoverable expenditures under agreements entered into with the approval of the governor in council with the governments of the provinces and territories and with local school boards in respect of social assistance to persons residing on Indian reserves other than Indians and the education in Indian schools of children other than Indian children, and to authorize the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide, in respect of Indian commercial activities, for the instruction and supervision of Indians, the furnishing of materials, the purchase of finished goods and notwithstanding any other act, the sale of such finished goods, $47,742,400.
Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I think we should call it six o'clock. This is a most im-

Business of the House
portant subject and I do not think we could conclude it today, even if we sat till midnight.


René Tremblay: May I thank all hon. members for the close co-operation I have received from them.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the acting house leader what is the business for next week as far as he can go.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, as announced by the Solicitor General last night the first item of business on Monday will be resuming the debate on second reading on Bill No. C-121, to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates. That would be followed by item No. 49 on today's order paper, house again in committee of the whole on the resolution with respect to the Crop Insurance Act. The third item for Monday would be item No. 76 on today's order paper, second reading of Bill No. C-123, to amend certain acts administered in the department of insurance. The house leader informs me that if agreement could be obtained on Monday there might be a switch,
in that Bill No. C-123 might follow the farm machinery legislation, and the Crop Insurance Act resolution would then be in third rather than second place.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:

[Stage Direction]
Citizenship-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions for language instruction and citizenship promotion. $1,715,000.
5a. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions for language instruction and citizenship promotion-To extend the purposes of Vote 5 of the main estimates for 196465 to include the grants to organizations detailed in these estimates, $72,300.
Immigration-
10. Administration, operation and maintenance, including 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 and $10,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $13,552,200.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 28, 1964