1964-06-22

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege that affects all members of the house. Not only does it affect all members of the house, but it reflects on what happened last Friday. The particular point of privilege which I raise today is this. With the greatest respect to the position he holds, I say that the Prime Minister has misinformed the house with reference to the film which has been discussed many times previously in this house.
I should like to read the answers to some questions which were put. I will give the dates to the Prime Minister and I should like him to follow me carefully. As reported at page 3429 of Hansard for May 21, 1964-I will leave out the first part of the questions because they do not go to the very root of my point of privilege-the Prime Minister was asked this question by the hon. member for Port Arthur:
In that event, Mr. Speaker, if it were possible for the production to be seen on some network other than the C.B.C., would the Prime Minister and his advisers give their approval for that to be done?


Mr. Pearson:: We do not censor films on this side of the house.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he has had a private preview of the film?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Oh? What were you doing it for?


Lester Bowles Pearson: My right hon. friend should not get so excited.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there may be some question as to the definition of "preview", and I should like to read that definition to the house. The reason I do so is that on another occasion when I raised a point of privilege as to the winter games the Prime Minister appeared to find some difference between the word "conference" and the word "committee". According to the Oxford dictionary "preview" means "to view or examine a film".
Now I come to Friday, June 19, when some question was raised as to the integrity of the Prime Minister and there was some difference between what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle had said and what the hon. member for Port Arthur had said. At page 4490 there is some very interesting reading, and I will quote these extracts in chronological sequence. The Prime Minister is reported as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak for anybody else but I propose to say that I was telling the truth, the total truth, and I ask the hon. gentleman to accent that. He says, in throwing doubt on my word, that two hon. members have seen this film.


John George Diefenbaker: I said one.
Then the Prime Minister continued at the top of page 4491:
One hon. member has seen this film. The hon. member may have seen this film. I have not.


John George Diefenbaker: You did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not seen this film.


Mr. Churchill:: What have you seen, then?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back to June 2, where at page 3836 the Prime Minister was being questioned by the hon. member for Yukon regarding the film and an article which had appeared in the Globe and Mail. The Prime Minister is reported as follows:
I did not see it in my office. I saw it in Toronto at a studio, and it was shown in an office in the east block. I saw part of it there but the sound track was so bad I left after a few minutes because it could not be understood.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a question supplementary to the previous question asked of the Prime Minister. I was wondering if, as a sophisticated critic of art, he would tell us what he thought of the film "Mr. Pearson" when he saw it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I found it exceedingly interesting, Mr. Speaker.
The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is this. On May 21 last, as reported at page 3429 of Hansard, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue, said that he had seen the film. May I now refer to his statement made last Friday, June 19, when he said he had not seen the film. Also on June 2, as reported at page 3836 of Hansard, he said he had found the film exceedingly interesting.

International Labour Conference Therefore the point I make is that it could hardly have been exceedingly interesting if the Prime Minister had not seen it.
I would think, and I suggest this to the Prime Minister with the greatest respect to the position he holds-because we in Canada must not only respect the man but also the position he holds as Prime Minister of this country-that on this occasion he owes an apology to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who left due to a procedural argument, and due to an argument definitely on the subject, when he charged that it was not the complete and full truth the Prime Minister was telling the house. I say in that regard, with the greatest respect, that the house has been misinformed and the Prime Minister owes an apology to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and other members of the house.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the texts, in English and in French, of the instruments adopted at the international labour conference held in Geneva, Switzerland, and to make a brief explanation of the instruments. Its conclusions included one international labour convention and two recommendations.
The convention and one of the recommendations deal with the problem of the risk caused in industry by inadequately guarded machinery. They seek the prohibition of the sale, hire and use of inadequately guarded machinery. These were adopted at the conference without opposition. The provisions of these instruments are being taken into account in legislation now under active consideration in the occupational safety field.
The other recommendation deals with the principles and practices to be followed in relation to the termination of employment of workers at the initiative of the employer.
All of these instruments were supported by Canadian employer, worker and government delegates.
The constitution of the I.L.O. requires a member state to bring conventions and recommendations "before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies for the enactment of legislation or other action". In the case of a federal state there is a further obligation to refer the instruments to the appropriate state or provincial authorities "for the enactment of legislation or other action", and to arrange for periodic

consultations with a view to promoting coordinated action to give effect to the provisions of the instruments.
The instruments will, therefore, in accordance with past practice, be brought officially to the attention of the provinces. My colleague the Secretary of State has sent copies to the lieutenant governor of each province, with the request that they be placed before the competent authority in the province for consideration.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. S-35 (from the Senate), to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PRICES PAID BY LIVESTOCK FEEDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
June 19-the Minister of Forestry-The following proposed motion: -That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to examine and inquire forthwith into all matters arising out of and relating to the difference between the prices received for feed grain by the producers in the prairie provinces of Canada and the price paid by livestock feeders in eastern Canada and British Columbia, and that the evidence adduced before this committee in the twenty sixth parliament be referred to the committee, and that the committee have leave to receive such evidence as part of the said examination.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Is the agency known as the manpower consultative service now in operation and, if so, since what date and what work has been done in relation to the objectives of the agency?

2.	If the agency is not yet in operation what has been done since the program was announced in the House of Commons last June?
3.	What grants has the government provided for research purposes to (a) unions (b) companies (c) which unions and which companies and what amount was granted in each case?
4.	What is meant by definite manpower problems and in the case of unions and companies who may have received grants, what were these problems?
5.	In order to be entitled to these grants for research, how many companies gave the government advance notice of technical changes?
6.	How many companies or unions made representations and were turned down?
7.	Who are the six experts and who were given the task of setting up the agency and causing measures to be taken and (a) what are their qualifications and their salaries (b) where are they working at the present time, and (c) do they have any staff?
8.	Who made up the three member commission that was to travel across Canada in order to interview candidates for the six positions?
9.	Who were the 30 candidates and for what reasons were the six candidates chosen?
10.	What is the nature of the federal fund established to decrease transfer expenses for workers displaced through technical changes?
11.	Who is directly responsible to the treasury for this fund?
12.	According to what standards or conditions is it administered?
13.	What moneys have been spent to date?
14. Will this agency soon be reporting on its activities and, if so, when can the report be expected?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: 1. Staff is currently being appointed for the manpower consultative service. Four appointments have been made and the personnel will be reporting for duty during the month of May. Preliminary work on developing the program of the service has been undertaken by the Department of Labour.
2.	Numerous discussions have been held with labour and management groups representing a variety of industries about the work planned for the agency, the staff mentioned in question 1 has been recruited and the plans for the new service were reviewed at the federal-provincial labour conference of ministers of labour and deputy ministers in March 1964.
3,	4, 5. No grants have yet been made.
6.	No companies or unions making representations have been turned down.
7.	(a) Three senior and three intermediate positions were established to administer this service, four of which have been filled by open competition through the civil service commission.
G. G. Brooks, head of the service, salary $16,000. University graduate with a B.A. and M.A. degrees with over 20 years experience in labour relations and personnel work
Questions
in industry. During past 13 years was personnel manager with United Aircraft of Canada Limited.
D. Adamson, salary $13,100. A veteran of world war II with a diploma in electrical engineering and a number of years experience as a personnel manager and industrial relations consultant in industry. Latterly manager of employee relations with Levy Industries Limited, Toronto.
A.	M. Sargent, salary $9,030. A war veteran and a graduate in arts and honours economics from McGill University. Former employee of the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour, who since 1950 has been engaged in a number of research projects providing him with knowledge of Canadian industry and manpower problems. His last major project was with the Canadian aspects of an international study, conducted by the organization for economics co-operation and development on effects of technological change in manpower and on manpower adjustment policies.
John Drew, salary $8,310. University graduate with a B.Com. and M.A. degrees; formerly research director for the B.C. federation of labour and latterly owner director of an economics and industrial relations centre in British Columbia.
(b)	The present headquarters are the Department of Labour, Ottawa.
(c)	Yes, three as of this date; three additional will likely be required to complete the establishment of this branch.
8.	The committee which interviewed candidates for these positions consisted of R. C. Labarge, assistant deputy minister of National Revenue (customs and excise); W. R. Dymond, assistant deputy minister, Department of Labour; and A. F. Mackey, civil service commission officer.
9.	Having regard for the right to privacy of the candidates and the possibility that publication of information could prove to be not only embarrassing but prejudicial to them, the commission feels it should not release for publication the names of the candidates who were not included on the eligible lists. The successful candidates were chosen because they met the standard of experience and ability which was required.
10.	11, 12. The Minister of Labour, through the manpower consultative service, is empowered to enter into agreements to provide re-employment incentives to a province or

Questions
employers or both, of one half the costs incurred in moving workers displaced by industrial change, and their dependents to other communities where employment is available. This provision is limited to those workers who, except for the payment of the incentive, would not otherwise be able to move.
13.	No moneys have been spent to date.
14.	The manpower consultative service will normally be reporting on its activities through the annual report of the Department of Labour, and through statements made from time to time by the Minister of Labour.


* COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF 12 MILE FISHING LIMIT
Mr. Mather: Is it the intention of the government to place the 12 mile fishing limit proposals before the standing committee on marine and fisheries and, if so, when will this be done?


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Speaker, in reply I wish to state that the subject is at present before the committee on marine and fisheries.


ASSISTANCE TO GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Since 1960, has the government assisted the Canadian Geographical Society or the Canadian Geographical Journal by way of (a) technical advice given by any government department (b) research facilities on any department (c) direct co-operation of any government officials (d) credits, subsidies, or grants for travel, study, etc. (e) participation in the activities of international geographical organizations?
2.	To which of these organizations does Canada belong and what appropriations has the government provided for this year's Canadian participation in and contribution to these organizations?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Since 1960 the geographical branch, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, has assisted the Royal Canadian Geographical Society in an incidental manner from time to time. This has involved occasional small drafting jobs covering maps to be published in the Canadian Geographical Journal.
No direct grants, subsidies or travel grants have been provided. Geographical branch personnel have occasionally acted as representatives of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society in an incidental manner when attending international meetings.
No credits, grants or subsidies have been provided by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The department has responded in the normal way to requests for information and available photographs from time to time. The present deputy
[Mr. Lamontagne 1
minister and his predecessor have been elected by members of the society to the board of directors of the society and departmental staff members have contributed occasional articles or book reviews to the journal.
2.	Canada belongs to the international geographical union and the pan American institute of geography and history. For the current year the following appropriations have been made for Canadian participation: (a) membership, international geographical union, annual fee, $550; (b) travel expenses to cover participation of branch scientists in the international geographical congress (I.G.U.) in London, England, July 1964, $3,000; (c) annual membership fee, pan American institute of geography and history, $9,800; (d) travel expenses for attendance at directing council of the pan American institute of geography and history, Mexico, June 1964,	$600;	(e) travelling
expenses of members of the Canadian national committee of the international geographical union, $1,600.


P.O. DEPARTMENT DEFICIT ON SECOND CLASS MAIL
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much was the deficit of the Post Office Department for delivering second class mall for each of the past five years?
2.	Of this, how much was for delivering newspapers and how much was for delivering magazines?
3.	Of the deficit for delivering newspapers, how much was for delivering daily newspapers and how much for delivery of weekly newspapers?
4.	Of the deficit for delivering magazines, how much was caused by delivering Canadian magazines, how much by delivering United States magazines?
5.	Of the deficit for delivering magazines, how much was caused by delivering institutional and how much by delivering commercial publications?


Mr. Nicholson:: 1.
(1)
Deficit
(2)
Deficit adjusted to reflect expenditures arising from the transfer to first class mail of costs for preferential treatment
1958-	59	$23,147,0001959-	60	24,407,4001960-	61	26,773,8001961-	62	26,420,7001962-	63	26,987,800

2, 3, 4 and 5. Amounts not available because costs have not been apportioned to the various categories of publishers mail.

The above deficits for second class mail include transient mail which consists of newspapers and magazines mailed by the general public. As from the 1st April 1964 there is no longer a transient second class mail category. The amounts do not include charges such as the cost of accommodation supplied by the Department of Public Works or the superannuation payments made by the Department of Finance. A complete apportionment of these costs by classes of mail and services will commence with the current fiscal year.
The preferential treatment accorded to first class mail results in expenditures chargeable to first class mail but not reflected in the allocation of costs on the basis of the departmental cost ascertainment system. The inclusion of these costs with the direct expenditures on first class mail produces corresponding deductions from certain other classes of mail. The deduction of costs applicable to second class mail reduces the deficit to the amounts shown in column (2).


OFFICIAL FLAG
Mr. Marlineau: 1.	Is the flag embodying three maple leaves conjoined on one stem in the colours red and white the personal choice of the Prime Minister as the official emblem of Canada?
2.	What advisers did the Prime Minister consult before proposing this flag as Canada's official flag?
3.	What are the names of the heraldic experts which were consulted in regard to this choice?
4.	Were any alternative models suggested by the Prime Minister's advisers and experts as possible models for Canada's new flag?
5.	What is the heraldic significance of the new proposed flag?
6.	Did the Prime Minister or the government receive from any other persons or associations any other suggestions for a national flag?
7.	From whom were these suggestions received?


Lester Bowles Pearson: 1. No.
2 and 3. The government has had the benefit of the advice of many Canadians including Mr. Alan Beddoe, consultant on heraldry, emblems and badges for Canada, Mr. J. R. Matheson, M.P., and Mr. Howard Measures, director protocol branch, Secretary of State Department.
4.	Alternative models were suggested by the government's advisers.
5.	Sprigs of maple leaves have been emblematic of Canada from earliest times while the colours red, white and blue have traditional and historic attachments for Canada. By royal proclamation on November 21, 1921, a coat of arms was granted to Canada which included in the third division of the shield three maple leaves conjoined on one stem on
Questions
a white field, and a motto "From Sea to Sea" as the distinguishing features of the coat of arms. The design of these arms was simplified and corrected by the government, as announced in October 1957, and in 1962 was incorporated in the Queen's personal flag for use in Canada.
6.	Yes.
7.	At 15 June, 1964, including those submitted during and since the proceedings of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate in 1945-46, approximately 5,952 flag models and designs have been received by the government. Almost all of these have been submitted by individuals although suggestions have also come from the national flag of Canada league, la ligue du drapeau national du Canada, the association of Canadian clubs, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the I.O.D.E. and the Royal Canadian Legion.


* CORPORATE INCOME TAX RETURNS
Mr. Doucett: How many business enterprises in Canada filed corporate income tax returns for the years 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963?


Mr. Mcllraith:: The number of business enterprises in Canada which filed corporate income tax returns for the taxation years stated, as recorded up to the end of the following calendar year, was as follows: 1957, 96,122; 1958, 105,480; 1959, 115,983; 1960, 128,986;	1961, 138,509; 1962, 147,970; 1963,
not yet available.


WHARF RECONSTRUCTION, BLUE ROCK, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were public tenders called for the reconstruction of the public wharf at Blue Rock, Lunenburg county, Nova Scotia and, if so, what are the names of all companies bidding on this project and the amount of their bids?
2.	What is the name of the successful bidder, and the amount of his contract?


Mr. Deschaieleis:: 1. Public tenders were rereceived on May 13, 1964 for breakwater replacement at Blue Rock, N.S.
Mosher & Rawding Limited, $49,250; Acadia Construction Limited, $53,500; Kenney Construction Co. Limited, $59,200; Porter Brothers Limited, $66,600; T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia) Limited, $127,060.
2. The successful bidder was Mosher & Rawding Limited of Liverpool, N.S. at $49,250.

Questions


POST OFFICES CONSTRUCTED, ROBERVAL COUNTY, QUE.
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	How many post offices were built in Roberval county during the year ended March 31, 1964, under the program designed to combat unemployment and in what municipalities are they situated?
2.	How many projects are still pending?

Answer:	1. Construction of three post
offices commenced during the year ending March 31, 1964. They are located at: Albanel, St. Prime and Riviere au Dore.
2. Two, one at Ticouape and the other at Chambord, are under consideration.


PURCHASE OF CONCESSIONAIRES, MALIGNE LAKE, ALTA.
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): Is the department of northern affairs considering purchasing the concessionnaires at Maligne lake and, if so, for what reasons?


Mr. Laing:: Yes. Public facilities, especially day use facilities, must be greatly expanded to meet the needs of a rapidly growing number of visitors. This will require the use of shore line and other areas now occupied by concessionaires.


USE OF PALISADES LODGE, ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson): 1.	With regard to the Palisades lodge, was the federal government ever approached by the provincial government in order to set up a cultural training establishment using the Palisades as a headquarters?
2.	Has the department of northern affairs had any correspondence from any member of the Alberta government in this regard and, if so, what is the nature of the correspondence?


Arthur Laing: 1 and 2. No.


TENDERS FOR PENAL INSTITUTION, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the proposed date for the calling of tenders for the construction of the young offender's institution at Springhill?
2.	What will be the length of the tender call?
3.	Will the tender call be comprehensive with all aspects of construction involved, or will there be a series of tender calls?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. July, 1964.
2.	A period of six weeks is contemplated.
3.	The tender call will be comprehensive for the site development and construction
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
of all buildings under the one contract. Separate tenders were called and accepted in March 1964 for the boiler plant equipment. Local tenders were called for two wells last year, and another local tender will be called for a third well in July.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BYPASS, NEW GLASGOW, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: When was work commenced on the New Glasgow, Nova Scotia bypass of the trans-Canada highway, and what amount has been contributed by the federal government to this work?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The first contract on the New Glasgow bypass was awarded on November 10, 1961. The federal government has contributed a total of $1,377,065.77 up to the present time for this project.


PIER REPAIRS, BAILEY'S BROOK, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: What are the details of the pier repairs to be carried out at Bailey's Brook, Nova Scotia, as listed in supplementary estimates (A), 1964-65?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Repairs to the east pier at Bailey's Brook will include reconstruction of (a) 100 foot section of inner end in timber pilework, (b) 145 foot section of wave-break in concrete, (c) 650 foot outer section of deck system in concrete. Minor repairs to deck system of outer 80 feet of west breakwater will also be carried out.


LABOUR SHORTAGE ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,285
Mr. Orlikow:: 1.	Has the Department of Labour a definition of a labour shortage and, if so, what is it?
2.	In how many occupations does the Department of Labour estimate there will be labour shortages in 1964? What are they?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The Department of Labour has no official definition of a labour shortage.
2. Not applicable.


IMPROVEMENT OF HAUL-OUT FACILITIES, WHITE POINT, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to carry out improvements to the haul-out facilities for the benefit of the fishermen at White Point, Victoria county. Nova Scotia and, if so, what are the improvements and how soon will they commence?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes. A contract has
been awarded for repairs to the concrete top

4S41
of the skidway, and the work is expected to commence in the near future.


* TORONTO AIRPORT
Mr. Cowan: 1.	What is the nature of the exclusive rights which have been granted to Air Terminal Transport Limited to provide limousine and taxi service at Toronto international airport?
2.	When were these arrangements made?
3.	On what basis was limousine and taxi service provided at Toronto international airport prior to these arrangements?
4.	On what basis may other taxi operators provide service to or from the airport?
5.	What is the reason for granting an exclusive concession to Air Terminal Transport?
6.	Does Air Terminal Transport hold taxi licences from the appropriate municipal or metropolitan authorities?
7.	What provincial or municipal franchises does Air Terminal Transport hold?
8.	How many buses, limousines and taxis does Air Terminal Transport have available for this service; and how many of these are available at the airport?
9. What rates are charged by Air Terminal Transport; and what authority do they have for the charging of these rates?
10.	How many passengers were carried by Air Terminal Transport by bus, limousine or taxi by categories, for the years ending July 31, 1961, July 31, 1962, July 31, 1963?
11.	What revenues were paid by Air Terminal Transport to the Department of Transport under these arrangements?
12.	Has the Department of Transport, Canadian National Railways or Canadian Pacific Railway Company made any payments to Air Terminal Transport in connection with the carriage of freight and express and, if so, has any concession fee been paid to the department on such occasions?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, I have a rather long winded answer to this question, and I wonder whether it could be taken as a non-starred question and the answer printed in Hansard in order to save the time of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	Air Terminal Transport Limited have been granted the exclusive right and privilege to maintain and operate a limousine and taxi station at Toronto international airport for the operation of a limousine and taxi service, together with the right and privilege to park buses, limousines and taxis in connection with the operation at such locations to be determined by the airport manager.
2.	The department first entered into an agreement with Air Terminal Transport
Questions
Limited on August 1, 1951. The agreement was renewed in 1955 for five years; and again in 1960 for ten years, but at a higher rental.
3.	Carter Transportation Limited provided the previous ground transportation service at Toronto international airport. In accordance with the established policy of the department at the time, the air line operators serving the airport were permitted to select their own ground transportation carrier, following which the department negotiated with the carrier for an agreement to permit them to enter the airport to carry on their business. Carter Transportation Limited, having been selected by the air lines concerned, were granted a four year agreement by the Department of Transport effective August 1, 1947. Prior to the expiry of that term, the airlines concerned informed the department that they were not prepared to renew their agreement with Carter Transportation Limited, but instead wished to enter into an agreement with Air Terminal Transport Limited. Following negotiations between the department and Air Terminal Transport Limited, the Department of Transport agreed to grant them an agreement to serve the Toronto international airport, provided they first obtained the necessary public vehicle licence from the Ontario highway transport board. Air Terminal Transport Limited purchased the equipment of Carter Transportation Limited and subsequently the Ontario highway transport board, following public hearings, agreed to transfer Carter's public vehicle licence to Air Terminal Transport Limited.
4.	Other taxi operators are free to bring passengers to the airport, or to collect passengers at the airport by prearrangement. However, they may not solicit business at the airport, or pick up fares without prearrangement.
5.	Air Terminal Transport Limited is required to provide a 24 hour service at the airport to meet the needs of the airlines serving the airport and the travelling public. They are required to operate limousines, buses and special cars and to have them available in sufficient numbers at the airport to meet peak demands, both scheduled and unexpected, arising from weather delays, diversions, etc. They are required to provide modern equipment, to carry public liability insurance, and provide uniformed employees. All of this requires a very heavy capital investment on the part of the company, and to maintain such an investment it is necessary that the company

Questions
be given exclusive rights to the passenger traffic offerings at the airport. To permit unrestricted competition from taxis would make the whole operation economically unsound. Without granting the company exclusive rights, it would be impossible to provide the type of service required by the travelling public. Experience elsewhere indicates that ground transportation dependent on the chance availability of taxis at an airport would be most unsatisfactory. There might be an oversupply of taxis available during certain periods with objectionable efforts to compete for the available passengers. In bad weather when business might be brisk downtown there would be a shortage of vehicles at the airport, leaving passengers to wait long periods for transportation. A split concession as between limousines and taxis is also unworkable. The department tried such an experiment at another major airport and had to abandon it in favour of the single operator. There, taxis were competing with the limousine by soliciting group fares at the airport, or preceding the limousine to known hotel pick-up points, and again soliciting group fares.
6.	Air Terminal Transport Limited does not hold taxi licences. These are not required for the type of service performed by the company.
7.	Air Terminal Transport Limited holds public vehicle licence No. 1519 from the province of Ontario, which allows its vehicles to carry passengers to and from Toronto international airport, and to any point in the province of Ontario.
8.	The company operates 13 buses of the highway cruiser type. Eight are 41 passenger, and five are 33 passenger vehicles. Seven buses operate on a regular 15 minute service, and six are available for extra backup service. The company operates 90 late model sedans. These sedans are replaced with new ones every six months. An average of 55 cars are on duty at all times, 78 at peak periods, seven on the Hamilton service and five surplus at peak periods. The company's garage is located one half mile from the airport.
9.	The limousine fare is $1.50, and the cars are operated on a zone rate basis comparable to taxi meter rates. The rates are subject to the approval of the Ontario highway transport board, the Department of Transport and the various air lines serving the airport.
[Mr. Pickersgill.J
10.	Passengers carried:
Bus Car
Year ended July 31/61	357,950	358,143"	"	July 31/62 344,319 413,564"	"	July 31/63 349,862 434,70511.	Revenue paid the Department of Transport: Year ended July 31/61, $60,609.24; year ended July 31/62, $67,552.04; year ended July 31/63, $68,856.88.12.	Air Terminal Transport Limited does not have any agreement with the Department of Transport covering the carriage of freight and express. There are no exclusive agreements covering this type of operation, and in this respect Air Terminal Transport compete freely with the trucking and express companies.


CERTIFICATE OF MASTER, PATROL CRAFT &quot;SCATARI LIGHT&quot;
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
How long has Peter Gerald Boudreau, master of the fisheries patrol craft Scatari Light, held a temporary certificate as master of a steamship of not more than forty tons, valid on the coastal waters of Cape Breton island and the adjacent mainland?
Answer: May 21, 1964. Prior to this date Mr. Boudreau held temporary certificate as master of a steamship of not more than 40 tons, limited to the area from Port Hawkes-bury to St. Esprit, including Canso. He was master of his own fishing vessel from 1945 to 1963.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Martineau: 1.	What are the statutes and acts that are being administered in each case by each of the departments of government?
2.	Have there been any changes or transfers from one department to another since the 23rd of April 1963 and, if so, what was each change or transfer?
3.	What are the names of all crown corporations or agencies giving, in each case, the minister who is responsible for same in parliament?
4.	Has there been any change or transfer of responsibility for such crown corporations or agencies since the 23rd of April 1963 and, if so, what are such changes or transfers, giving the names of the ministers involved?
5.	Does the government propose any further changes or transfers of the administration of acts or statutes from one department to another or from one minister to another?
6.	Does the government propose any changes in regard to crown corporations or agencies of the

minister who is responsible in each case to parliament for such crown corporations or agencies?
Return tabled.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF JOINT INDIAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Mr. Howard: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
"(a) Education is the key to the full realization by Indians of self determination and self government.
(b)	Education of Indian children in schools under the jurisdiction of the provinces should be continued and expanded.
(c)	Kindergarten facilities for Indian should be provided.
(d)	The provincial authorities should be approached to ensure that a more comprehensive and accurate account of the Indian people is used and described in history courses and texts.
(e)	Agreements should be entered into with provincial authorities to extend adult education facilities to Indians with the program expanded.
(f)	Travelling library facilities to Indian communities should be expanded wherever possible.
(g)	Academic upgrading and social orientation courses to prepare young Indians for placement or specialized training should be greatly expanded.
(h)	Full support and encouragement should be given to formation of home and school or parent-teacher associations.
(i)	The fullest possible encouragement and incentive should be given to Indian children to go as far as they can in school.
(j)	In addition to an intensive educational program, the economic opportunities and environment of the Indian people should be developed.
(k)	The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and other agencies should prepare factual presentations of the Indians' way of life and their contribution to the development of Canada."?
Return tabled.


EMPLOYEES OF WORLD FAIR CORPORATION
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	How many people has the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition hired since February 19 last and how have these new employees been assigned to the various services of the company?
2.	Who are the corporation's new administrative officers and what are their qualifications, salaries and responsibilities as of March 31st, 1964?
Return tabled.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State in a position to advise the house
Inquiries of the Ministry with regard to the report in the press this afternoon that he has been in communication with the C.B.C., as was the Prime Minister on Friday last, relative to the film "Mr. Pearson" being shown to the Canadian public?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, I have received the following letter from the president of the C.B.C.:
The corporation has been advised by the Prime Minister that in his personal view a television film known as "Mr. Pearson", rejected for broadcast by the C.B.C., should be given a public showing.
The corporation has also noted opinions expressed in the house by the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers.
The C.B.C. is responsible to parliament and must at all times carry out the wish and intent of parliament.
The independence of the C.B.C. from political influence in its operations is a cardinal point of public broadcasting policy. The corporation could not discharge its responsibility to parliament without this policy. Further, the public might well lose its confidence in the corporation and its program services if there were serious reason to doubt the corporation's integrity in such matters. Consequently, the corporation must at all times be careful not to confuse political matters with questions of broadcast responsibility.
With respect to the present situation it does not appear to the corporation that parliament has clearly indicated its wish that the rejected film be broadcast. In attempting to interpret the intent of parliament on this matter the corporation has encountered some difficulty.
This difficulty stems from the fact that since the inception of the C.B.C. it has been the custom of parliament to direct the work of the corporation only through approval of broadcasting policies in their broadest sense. The present instance is a question of whether or not a single program should be broadcast. Consequently there appears to be a question of principle or policy involved which may well transcend the more obvious and immediate considerations.
In the corporation's view this is a matter of great importance, keeping in mind the precedent that could be established in connection with broadcasting or showing of the film in question.
The corporation has already taken a broadcast decision with respect to this film. That decision was based solely on the professional broadcasting standards of the corporation which are used to judge such matters. The film has not changed and those standards have not changed.
Consequently the corporation must determine whether more compelling factors now exist in the realm of public interest. The corporation will give the matter immediate attention at the annual meeting of its board of directors this week and will advise you of its conclusions not later than Thursday, June 25.
As stated already, it is the desire of the corporation to carry out at all times the wishes of parliament.


Mr. Pugh:: Was that letter dated a week ago?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Without making any observations on that, which of course I cannot do at this time, did the minister ascertain from the C.B.C. whether, in the event it decided to show this film to the Canadian people, the excised portion or the expurgated portion, the tenderized or disinfected portion, would also be shown?


Maurice Lamontagne: I think the corporation is well aware of the requests which were made last Friday. I have not received any answer yet.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: May I ask a
supplementary question. I wonder if the minister, in his communication with the C.B.C., would take into account the desires of the Leader of the Opposition as they apply to the film "Mr. Pearson", and make the same request for the same application of those desires as they apply to the film, "The Chief"?


John George Diefenbaker: May I point out that I had nothing whatever to do with that, and every portion of it can be produced. I challenge the government to produce "Mr. Pearson".



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of National Defence is back in the house and I feel that all hon. members would like to know if he has comments to make concerning our troops, especially as far as morale and the military program are concerned.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: X do not have a report, but I should like to say that the troops I visited everywhere, in France, Germany, Cyprus and the Gaza strip, were all in high spirits, and they are doing their jobs most effectively. I can assure the hon. gentleman that he would be very proud of the Royal 22nd regiment and the magnificent way they are carrying out their responsibilities on the island of Cyprus, where young men of tender age are acting as excellent ambassadors for Canada and really doing a job there of which we can be proud.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of National


Defence, is it his intention now to request an extension of the terms of reference affecting our troops on Cyprus so they may take more active steps to prevent trouble on the island?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention. A suggestion has been made, however, that it may be necessary to review the terms of reference some time in the future if the United Nations force is to carry out a more active role there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Was the minister accurately reported when he was reported in the press as saying that he thought the terms of reference should be extended so some disarmament of the people causing the trouble in Cyprus could take place?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was not accurate; I made no such suggestion.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Could he tell us whether he intends to go to Washington to meet the president of Turkey or to invite him to Canada so that we might explain to him our country's point of view on the Cyprus situation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs is keeping in constant touch with all those who are doing their best to reach some settlement in that strife-torn island, and I do not think there is anything which could be done which is not presently being done.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does he propose to meet the president of Turkey when the latter is on American soil in a few days, in order to discuss the Cyprus situation?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be in Washington Thursday for discussions with the joint defence committee, and I may have something to say to the hon. member and to the house on Friday.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for Ex-

ternal Affairs. Can the hon. gentleman advise the house whether the continued operation of Canadian troops in Cyprus will be financed by Canada, or whether financial assistance can be expected from the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish the financial situation of the United Nations was such that we could count upon the collective financial responsibility of all the state members. But that is not the case, and we shall have to continue under the arrangement for the first three months.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. My question is based on his statement on Friday that those recommendations of the royal commission on health services which are to be implemented should be put into effect as soon as possible. In the light of this assertion, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to carry out the recommendation that a federal-provincial conference be convened within six months of the date of the tabling of volume 1 of the report to consider initial steps in connection with a health services program?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the intention of the government to give this important report the detailed study which it deserves and which it must receive before the government can appear at a federal-provincial conference to discuss with the provinces the policy which should be adopted jointly with them. As soon as a study of this kind has been completed we shall be in a better position to approach the provinces with a view to holding a conference on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister give consideration to the recommendation in the report that even before such a conference is held, changes be made in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, there is a meeting next month with the provinces at which time this matter will be discussed, but the hon. gentleman knows that we are dealing with as important a report as has been given to the people of Canada for many years. It will require very careful consideration both by
Inquiries of the Ministry this government and by provincial governments. I hope, indeed I know, we can reconcile the need for this kind of consideration with the urgent need for getting ahead with these matters.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolietle-L'Assompiion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Can the minister tell the house if the government intends to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on health services and amend the Criminal Code to allow the provinces that so wish to set up lotteries to help meet the cost of health services?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, that recommendation will receive the same serious and full consideration of which the Prime Minister spoke a while ago, as all the other recommendations made by the commission.



INCLUSION OF MENTAL HOSPITALS AND TUBERCULOSIS SANATORIA IN FEDERAL PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the government considering immediate legislation to designate mental and tuberculosis hospitals as facilities under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows this was a recommendation of the advisory council on health. As the Prime Minister has already mentioned, there is a meeting of ministers of health to be held in Ottawa next month, and this will be one of the matters on the agenda.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. May I first take this opportunity to welcome him back in our midst. Is it the intention of the hon. gentleman's department to refer the question of veterans hospitals

Inquiries of the Ministry to the standing committee on veterans affairs before any definite action is taken to transfer control of such hospitals?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I believe I have answered that question on other occasions. The question was discussed by the committee during the course of the last session. It made a recommendation, and we have undertaken to consult with veterans organizations before anything is made final. I do not think it would serve a useful purpose at this stage, because of the need for completing some of these arrangements, to refer this back to the committee.


David Vaughan Pugh: wonder if the minister would tell us how many hospitals have actually been transferred from the administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs to date.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: None, Mr. Speaker.


David Vaughan Pugh: Not even Calgary?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: No, Mr. Speaker.



SPEECH BY MINISTER AT UNVEILING OF MEMORIAL IN NORMANDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he has apologized to the Royal Winnipeg Rifles for his inappropriate remarks on the occasion of the unveiling of the Winnipeg Rifles war memorial in Normandy.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Down in the gutter again.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, there was no apology necessary, and I offer none. The remarks I made at that very impressive ceremony .were appropriate and in keeping with the circumstances. If one reporter among many others present who made a specific report-quite inaccurate in its quotations-had been listening to what I said and had read the very well prepared historical record of the Royal Winnipeg Rifles before writing his story, I am sure his report would have had a different orientation.



BRITISH COLUMBIA AND YUKON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May I address this question to the Prime

Minister in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and his parliamentary secretary. In view of the grave concern among many people in the Fraser valley that the dikes which extend for some 233 miles along the lower Fraser and its tributaries, having been subjected to an unusually high level of the river over an extended period, are endangered as a result of saturation, seepage and undermining, can the Prime Minister advise us what the situation is and what steps the federal government is taking in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not today, but I will look into the situation and see whether we can make a report tomorrow.


George Louis Chatterton: To allay the fears of the people, can the right hon. gentleman state in advance that in the unfortunate event of breaches in the dikes and widespread losses, the federal government will give generously and without bickering to relief, and not in the picayune Alberni tidal wave fashion?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that question is in order.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I ask the
acting minister this. Can he inform the house whether any financial assistance has been or will be given to the government of the Yukon territory with respect to the serious damage caused by floods in the Mayo and Dawson City area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will take that up with the
minister.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister received a telegram from Kenneth Homer of Upper Woodstock, New Brunswick, requesting a copy of a recent report from the Atlantic office of his department relative to the effects of the proposed Mactaquac power development on the Atlantic salmon in the Saint John river?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I did receive such a telegram, and my reply was to the effect that there were no official reports available. There is a study being made by the federal Department of

Fisheries and the government of New Brunswick, but while negotiations are under way it would not be proper to make public any report which we have available to us.


Hugh John Flemming: Will the minister assure the house that when the report is available it will be made public?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: When the negotiations
with New Brunswick are complete, and with the consent of the provincial government, because they are a party to this study, the report will be made public.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Dean Howe: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recommendation of the royal commission on health services, will the government consider immediate implementation of its proposed university scholarship and loan plan, and a major extension of it to include medical students, postgraduate physicians, dentists and nurses?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I have already stated, we hope to put this into effect as quickly as possible this summer.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I want to address a question to the Secretary of State. Would the minister advise the house whether it is the intention of the government to have an examination of the accounts of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by a special committee on broadcasting?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he tell us whether he received a copy of a brief presented by the St. Jean Baptiste societies of Quebec, concerning a new federation of two associate states in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall having received it. It has not been brought to my attention if it has arrived, but I will look into it right away.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on a report of a speech made by Mr. Arnold Heeney to a British audience on Friday last, when he is reported to have said:
It seems to me unprofitable... to place undue emphasis nowadays on friendship and special relationship within the commonwealth. The winds of change... have laid bare the dry and brittle roots of much cherished doctrine.
It is obvious enough that the commonwealth cannot recover nor achieve any meaningful degree of political cohesion.
Would the minister inform the house if this statement is a reflection of government policy and, if it is not, what right has a servant of the public to go travelling around making statements in contradiction to that policy?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think this question is in order under the rules given to the Chair. It fails in that questions should not inquire whether statements reported in a newspaper are correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In view of the fact that the hon. gentleman has made a statement concerning a distinguished public servant, I think, in fairness to that public servant, I should make a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: If the question is not in order I doubt very much if a reply can be permitted. I am sure there will be another opportunity to make a statement. If I make an exception for the minister I will have to make exceptions in other cases, and the rules are destroyed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will go into this matter further at ten o'clock.



POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN SALES TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry FORESTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Forestry. On June 10 I asked the minister a question in regard to the urgency of agreement being reached between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia with respect to the forest stand improvement program, to provide employment for unemployed miners in Cape Breton. At that time the minister said he would have an answer the following week. I am wondering whether he is in a position to throw any light on that subject today.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the matter has been under urgent consideration by the minister and senior officials of his department. I shall give him notice of this further question today, and I think he will be in a position to answer within the next three or four days.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, although I think he might wish to consult his colleague the Minister of National Revenue before giving a categorical answer. Will the Canadian government consider a contribution to what is known as the "bomber bonfire", which seems to be the most promising approach to disarmament at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there are two proposals currently before the 18 nation disarmament committee concerning the destruction of bomber aircraft; the Soviet proposal for the destruction of all bombers by all countries, and the United States proposal for the reciprocal destruction of a specific number of B-47's and TU-16's which have similar long range missions. In its present form the Soviet proposal is unrealistic. The United States proposal concerns major armaments of a type not held by Canada.
[Mr. Herridge.l
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce based on the undertaking the Prime Minister gave last Friday, when he said the Minister of Trade and Commerce "perhaps will be in a position to make a statement on the whole matter early next week".
My question is based on the apparent contradiction between what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in Los Angeles a few weeks ago and what Mr. Khrushchev said in Denmark late last week, when he said it is unlikely that Moscow will make further purchases of grain from the west, which has provided millions of bushels of wheat to offset poor Russian crops. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said in Los Angeles that he expected this trade with Russia would carry on for a number of years. I wonder whether he is now in a position to clarify this matter, or when he will be able to do so?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to make a statement now. In the first place, the statement I made in Los Angeles was to the effect that I did not think the Soviet union was likely in the near future to be a large exporter of wheat, and I think this statement is probably true, although it is just a personal opinion.
May I go on to answer the two questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Medicine Hat last Friday in my absence. The Leader of the Opposition asked me to comment on a statement made by the premier of the Soviet union in Denmark the other day, in which he is quoted as having said that he did not think Moscow will make further purchases of grain from the west in 1964.
When the Leader of the Opposition asked me a similar question the other day I made it quite plain that we were waiting for the Soviet union to make up their mind. This continues to be the situation. The wheat board is constantly in touch with the Soviet union, and when they have made up their mind they will let the wheat board know whether or not they require any grain. I have never made any statements to the contrary, and I certainly would not want to mislead anyone. This is a

decision that has to be made by the Soviet union. But may I say that so good has been the performance under the existing contract with the U.S.S.R. that the Soviet authorities have made it quite plain to us that if they need wheat they will certainly buy some from Canada. The shipments against the enormous contract that we signed last fall will be completed this July. Deliveries have been made ahead of schedule, the quality has been excellent, and the Russians are happy.
May I add, so that I may not be accused of having misled the house, that in the fall I forecast that our exports of wheat and flour this year would be of the order of 550 million bushels, which as hon. members know is a couple of hundred million bushels more than the largest figure reached in the last six years or so. I now find that I was wrong, and that the shipments will be of the order of 590 million bushels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought, in case anyone in the house should think I had misled them in any way, I should bring them up to date on these figures.
The second question, asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, had to do with our shipments under foreign aid. We do expect this year to make a very substantial increase in shipments of wheat and flour under foreign aid. I am not in a position to give the exact figures now, but they will be very substantial. This will restore the level at least to what it was before the previous government made very big cuts, and I am hoping it will not be long before we are able to reach the target which I stated previously, of about $40 million a year.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think one matter should be corrected as far as the cut was concerned. We increased the amount very greatly after cutting it one year, so there was an increase during the period we were in office. The question I asked the minister was this. As a result of the conversations that are taking place between the U.S.S.R. representatives and the Canadian wheat board, has the U.S.S.R. given any indication that there is foundation for the suggestion by Mr. Khrushchev that further purchases are not to be expected?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can answer that about as well as I could answer a question as to how large the crop will be in western Canada this year. The Russians, like ourselves, are a bit uncertain.
20220-289i
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: That, of course, is not quite as direct as the hon. gentleman was when he was on his pilgrimage to Saskatoon on Friday. However, I think things look very hopeful since he has been there-for us.
I would ask him, though, is it a fact that there has been any indication by the U.S.S.R. that Mr. Khrushchev's prediction, if I may call it such, has some foundation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I had the opportunity, both going to and coming from Saskatoon, to have considerable discussion with the members of the Canadian wheat board, and they brought me up to date and said that the answers I had given to the right hon. gentleman during the week had been exactly right, namely that there is great uncertainty and that the Soviet union has yet to make up its mind. But may I add this, Mr. Speaker. I would like to offset the rather pessimistic tone of the remarks-made by the Leader of the Opposition, because I know he is just as interested as I am in getting as high a price as possible for Canadian wheat. The sales prospects for next year, whether or not the Russians buy, are excellent.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce would undertake to allay some of the apprehension in the flour milling industry by making a forward announcement to the effect that with regard to this tremendous or substantial increase in foreign aid in the form of flour, the orders for flour will be placed immediately after July 31 when they have completed the Russian order. I might say that if there are not some further orders forthcoming, more than 50 per cent of our flour milling industry will be shut down.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. gentleman about the outlook for the flour milling industry. I understand the situation very well, and I will be pleased to look into the suggestion he has made.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
DELAY IN GRANTING CERTIFICATES TO CHINESE	.
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. It relates to the announcement made by the minister last week that he was going to appoint a commissioner to inquire into certain aspects of the immigration branch of his department. I wonder whether, in course
4550	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of considering the terms of reference for that commissioner, the minister would include a proviso that the commissioner also inquire into the inordinately long delay, ranging in some cases up to five or six years, which results from the process of granting people of Chinese origin their citizenship certificates?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have a long statement to make to the house in a few moments when interim supply is brought in.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfort-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the Gill report on unemployment insurance. Is it the intention of the government to present this report during this session?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have several times stated the policy of the government with respect to the implementation of all or part of the recommendations of the Gill committee. If parliamentary time will permit, as the Prime Minister indicated in the debate on the address in reply, this is one of the matters which might be dealt with this session.



INQUIRY INTO METHOD OF LIMITING ELECTION EXPENDITURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is having any difficulty in finding people to serve on the inquiry which he undertook to start into the practicable way of enforcing election expenditure limits?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No special difficulty, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question.
Would the Prime Minister then give us an explanation why it has been some four and a half months since he indicated that he would do this and we still have not had this inquiry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it will be done as quickly as possible. After all, there is a good deal of time between the present and the next election.


Mr. Lambert:: What do you mean by
"present"?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of reports to the effect that a bankruptcy ring is operating a huge racket in Canada and that representatives of the superintendent of bankruptcy and of the attorney general's department of the province of Quebec have met to discuss the situation, and in view of public concern at these reports, would the minister inform the house what action is to be taken to deal effectively with this situation?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this would be a proper question for the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR ANSWER TO QUESTION ON ORDER PAPER	.
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of immigration. On June 3 I put down a question, No. 1,213, and I am wondering whether the minister is now in a position to answer it. I asked that it be answered verbally and it relates to his department, which has been under discussion for at least six weeks.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this question, but I will look into it.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration what method he would suggest to the house to draw to his attention questions which have been on the order paper since June 3.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to answer as soon as possible the questions asked on orders of the day. I think that our department has quite a good record in that regard.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as there is great concern today at reports of royal commissions I am wondering whether I could ask the Minister of Transport when the government intends to put into effect the recommendations of the royal commission on coasting trade.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a bill proceeding through the other place, if it is not already through-I have not looked at the order paper today-dealing with this matter. It is going to come here in due course. Some time between now and Christmas I hope we will deal with it.



ROOSEVELT-CAMPOBELLO PARK ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION TO ADMINISTER INTERNATIONAL PARK

Hédard-J. Robichaud: the second reading of Bill No. S-26, respecting the commission established to administer the Roosevelt-Campobello international park.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move second reading of Bill No. S-26 on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister respecting the Roosevelt-Campobello international park. As hon. members know, this bill was read for the third time and passed by the Senate on May 28. May I be permitted to give a very brief explanation of the purpose of the bill.
This bill is designed simply to implement the international agreement signed by the President of the United States and by our Prime Minister in Washington on January 22, 1964. The purpose of this agreement was to establish an international park, symbolic of friendship between Canada and the United States, on the property on Campobello island, New Brunswick, which is so clearly identified with the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was here that President Roosevelt was afflicted with the attack of poliomyelitis which impaired his physique from then on but which, however, did nothing to impair the indomitable spirit of courage which was the hallmark of his great service to his own country and to the world in subsequent years.
The agreement signed on January 22 in Washington by the President and the Prime
Roosevelt-Campobello Park Minister concluded months of negotiation between officials of the two governments, in consultation with the province of New Brunswick, where the property is located, regarding the best method for dealing with the generous offer made by the owners of the property, the Hammer brothers, to donate the house and adjacent grounds to the governments of Canada and the United States as a suitable memorial to President Roosevelt and as a symbol of friendship between these two great neighbours.
In May 1963, at the Hyannis Port meeting between the late President Kennedy and Prime Minister Pearson, the Hammer brothers made this offer public and, after communicating with Premier Robichaud, the two heads of government announced their grateful thanks for the offer in principle. The negotiations which followed led to the emergence of the concept of an international commission composed equally of United States and Canadian representatives to administer the proposed park to be established on this site. This concept is embodied in the January 1964 agreement which is annexed to the present bill as the schedule.
At every stage of these negotiations the government of New Brunswick was consulted, and the warm agreement of the New Brunswick authorities to the proposed arrangements was consistently given. I should add that certain aspects of the January agreement involved matters within the provincial jurisdiction of New Brunswick, particularly certain phases of the tax exemptions referred to in article 8 of the agreement. We have been informed that the New Brunswick legislature has already adopted the necessary legislation to implement those aspects of the agreement which fall within the province's jurisdiction.
Meanwhile steady progress is being made in regard to parallel legislation in the United States congress, and all concerned hope that arrangements will be completed in order that the commission may be established and the park opened to tourists as early as possible. Of course, until the necessary legislation has been adopted and the commission formed the title to this property remains with the Hammer family who acquired the property in 1952.
I would like to draw the attention of the house to one or two features of the proposed bill and of the international agreement which is attached as its schedule. It is intended to

Roosevelt-Campobello Park establish an international commission comprising three representatives of each government, together with alternates, who would be responsible for administering the park. It is specifically provided in article 3 of the agreement that one of the Canadian commissioners is to be nominated by the government of New Brunswick and one of the United States commissioners by the government of Maine. Nationals of both countries may be employed on the staff of the commission, and of course the commission has been given all necessary legal powers and capacities to discharge its functions.
I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to article 8 of the agreement, which provides that the commission shall be exempt from various federal and local taxes and, as stated, we have been informed that the New Brunswick legislature has already taken action under this article. Regarding admission fees for entrance to the park, the agreement leaves it to the discretion of the commissioners as to whether or not it would be desirable to impose such fees. However, the agreement specifically states that, if the commission decides to impose admission fees, "such fees shall be set at a level which will make the facilities readily available to visitors".
The remaining sections of the agreement and of the implementing legislation are, in my opinion, self explanatory. I should add that in the Senate consideration of this bill the proposed legislation was referred to the Senate committee on external relations where detailed consideration of the bill was given. Officials of various departments appeared as witnesses. In view of this I hope the house will agree that it would not be necessary to refer this bill to our own committee on external affairs.
Therefore I would like to close my remarks with the well-known words of the statesman whom this park is intended to honour. In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated, "In the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbour".


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly in support of Bill S-26 which, when passed, will establish a commission to administer the Roosevelt-Campobello international park. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was one of the greatest of the American presidents, came to this part of the country from the time he was one year old until 1921, and

it was on this beautiful little island of Campobello that he contracted poliomyelitis. After his election as president of the United States he returned very infrequently, but he and his family always loved this island and his home on it.
As has been outlined by the Minister of Fisheries, this property was sold by the family in 1952 and for 11 years was in the possession of a private family in the United States, but in 1963 the owners of the property offered it to the governments of Canada and the United States as a memorial to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
I may add that there are other beautiful islands in this part of Canada, in the southwest corner of New Brunswick, such as Grand Manan, Deer island, the Wolves and others where perhaps the kindest people anywhere in Canada can be found. I know that when the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton speaks on this bill he will draw attention to the bridge which was built from Lubec to Campobello, linking the island with the mainland, during the time when he was the distinguished premier of New Brunswick and the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was the prime minister of Canada. That bridge has proven to be of great assistance to the people there, and it will help to make this memorial park one of the greatest tourist attractions in eastern Canada.
I join with the Minister of Fisheries and other hon. members who will be following me in supporting this measure to establish a commission to administer this memorial.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of expressing my great satisfaction that we have this bill before us today, a bill that brings about co-operation between the government of the United States and the government of Canada in contributing to a national shrine to a very great man, a very great friend of Canada and a great leader at a most difficult period in the world's history. I associate myself with everything that has been said by the Minister of Fisheries and the hon. member for York-Sunbury.
We may well express our approval of this measure, because this is one of the few times that the governments of Canada and the United States have jointly purchased property, this time for the express purpose of doing honour to the man whose home was on this island. This park, I am sure, will be a great source of satisfaction to the citizens of both our countries.

I have some personal knowledge of the events leading up to the signing of the agreement. A few years ago the governor of Maine came to Saint John, New Brunswick, to address a meeting, and he and I found ourselves in complete agreement that something should be done in connection with this property. Now, under this agreement, we will have a park established in honour of a very great man, a friend of Campobello island, of New Brunswick, of Canada and of the free world. I am sure the bill will receive the warm approval of every member of the house.
This little island is located in Passama-quoddy bay. It lies south in the province of New Brunswick and at one point is very close to the state of Maine. In fact it is so close that, as was mentioned by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, not too long ago a bridge was constructed with the co-operation of the governments of New Brunswick and Canada and the governments of the state of Maine and the United States of America. This really brings about the possibility of access by tourists to the home of this great man.
Those who have seen the play "Sunrise at Campobello" in one of the New York theatres will remember that the incident when the late president was stricken with poliomyelitis was vividly portrayed; but in spite of never again walking unaided the late president, as we all know, was elected four times to the office of president of the United States. He guided his country through the great depression, and he skilfully and resolutely assisted as much as possible and as quickly and as effectively as possible the struggle of the free world prior to Pearl Harbor and subsequently.
As has been said, the government of New Brunswick is co-operating fully, and I am certain that all Canadians will be pleased, particularly the residents of New Brunswick as well as the people of the state of Maine. The agreement contained in the bill provides that the commission accepts title to the property comprising the Roosevelt home and grounds. The commission is to take the necessary measures to restore the home as nearly as possible to its condition when occupied by President Roosevelt. The commission is to administer as a memorial the Roosevelt Campobello international park. As the minister very properly pointed out, of the six members who will comprise the commission one of the Canadian members will be nominated by the government of New Brunswick and one of the United States members by the government of the state of
Roosevelt-Campobello Park Maine, which seems to me a most excellent idea.
It is very pleasing to me to see that steps are being taken to maintain the summer home of a great president, that steps are being taken to provide that the administrative body shall be composed of representatives from each country, that steps are being taken to do honour to the great president who spent much of his young life and a portion of his mature life in this home, and that steps are being taken so that the public shall have the opportunity of visiting this international shrine. It is most pleasing to know that immediate action is being taken to carry out something that I feel will be in accordance with the desires of all citizens of the United States and Canada. Therefore I have a great degree of pleasure in indicating that I support wholeheartedly the substance of the bill, and I congratulate the minister on presenting it to the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, we share the general regard for the memory of the late President Roosevelt. One of the paradoxes of his career so far as Canada is concerned is that his popularity in Canada always tended to run ahead of his popularity in the United States. Around 1936, when his career was at its height in political terms, I made my summer living United States tourists, most of them prosperous industrialists or farmers from the corn belt in the middle of the United States. Needless to say they were almost all Republicans, and the comments they used to make about President Roosevelt actually shocked me. I almost thought it was treason that Americans, even Republicans, could think so little of a president.
This came to my mind not long ago during Easter week end when I was in Washington and happened to comment to an old Washingtonian about the fact that there were mobs at the Kennedy grave at Arlington, obviously a shrine, and mobs milling around the Washington monument, the Jefferson memorial and the Lincoln memorial. I said "It is hard to understand why Washington has not created or erected anything in memory of Franklin Roosevelt". I got an answer that might indicate that men who are dead sometimes have to wait for a rewriting of history. This man's answer was "Roosevelt made a lot of mistakes. After all, consider the way he behaved at Yalta. He sold us out to Joe". Then he went on to indicate that the United States has the problem of creeping socialism,

Roosevelt-Campobello Park and that in some ways the late President Roosevelt was responsible for this.
I mention these points because it is so often the case that a great American is looked upon as a greater hero by people outside his country. I think this is especially true of President Roosevelt so far as Canada and Great Britain are concerned. I would hope that the very initiative and part that Canada is playing in this matter will be the beginning of what might be termed a popular return to the real level that we think President Roosevelt should be on in terms of his popularity and his reputation as, in my mind, the greatest of all United States presidents. I know that my colleagues share this very high estimate of the late president.
We think this is an excellent piece of legislation. We do not think Canadians can pay enough tribute to what the late president meant not only to the United States and the world but to his Canadian neighbours.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
On the schedule-
Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister about the schedule. It is my understanding that in this regard the two jurisdictions are breaking new ground, and that for the first time title to property will be held by a commission. In other words the old bugaboo of sovereignty goes by the board, and a part of Canada is being vested in a creature of the parliament of Canada and of the house of representatives of the United States. Is this the way in which the property is to be held?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Chairman, 1
understand that this is the decision that was taken. The property will be held jointly by the governments of Canada and the United States and, as specified in the bill, it will be administered by a commission with the appointees named by the two governments.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Is this the first time that property has been held in this manner?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I do not know of any other instances.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



INTERIM SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 12, consideration of the following resolution- Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair:
Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $469,308,421.26, being the aggregate of-
(a)	one twelfth of the total of all of the items set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $329,299,209.25:
(b)	an additional one twelfth of the amount of agriculture item 5, privy council item 25 (schedule A) of the said main estimates, $2,259,116.67;
(c)	four twelfths of the total of all of the items in the supplementary estimates (A), laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, $134,897,245.34;
(d)	an additional seven twelfths of the amount
of	loans,	investments	and advances	item	L37a
(schedule B) of the supplementary estimates (A), $2,625,000.00;
(e)	an additional two twelfths of the amount
of	loans,	investments	and advances	item	L12a
(schedule C) of the supplementary estimates (A), $227,850,
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1965.
René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I know that hon. members wish to take advantage of this motion to discuss immigration matters, during this debate and I wonder if I could make a statement on that subject. I might say right now that my speech will be quite long. However, I am sure that it will enable the committee to understand my point of view on several important aspects of immigration and to clarify misunderstandings, even if certain points should normally be discussed during consideration of my department's estimates.
It goes without saying that I will welcome any question which may be asked here concerning my statement or any other point.
I believe that this budget motion will give me a wonderful opportunity to explain my vews with regard to that important sector of my responsibilities as a minister.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has been lately the subject of sharp criticisms from some members of

the House of Commons and other people, with regard to its procedure concerning one aspect of immigration, deportation. As those critics are almost confined entirely to that particular aspect of immigration, they will probably give a wrong impression of the situation.
In order to put the whole question in its true light, to begin with I should like to set out the responsibilities and activities of immigration as a whole, and then to consider the very important matter of deportation, as well as the particular charges levelled against my department in that respect.
The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is entrusted, pursuant to an act of parliament, with two main responsibilities. It rests with it to apply a well-defined immigration policy and for that purpose it must activate the migratory movement, look after the applications for entry, the selection and consideration of a continuous flow of immigrants without sponsors; it must also help them on their arrival, find them a job when necessary, in addition to studying the cases of the large number of immigrants sponsored by relatives.
Immigrants arrive in Canada at an average of 2,000 to 3,000 per week. The second main task of the department is to make easier the controlled movements of non-immigrants in Canada. The latter include tourists, travellers, businessmen, etc. There are over 600,000 such movements per week and this task falls on the department. In view of the large number of people who come to Canada, we really get few complaints about the department's work.
Let us look now at the matter of deportations. They are relatively few. In 1963, for instance, an average of 30 deportation orders a week were issued; in 1964, when the number of immigrants increased considerably, in general the number of deportation orders per week remained practically at the 1963 level. There were a little fewer than 500 deportations between January 1 and April 30. Present criticism against the deportment's procedures is directed at about 20 of those cases. Far be it from me, while comparing that number to the total number of immigrants, to try to underestimate the importance of each person involved. After all, every person is important, and we must see that everyone is treated fairly and equitably. In many cases, an appeal is made to me as minister. I must personally settle some of those cases, and I can assure members of the house that I spend many hours looking into those matters concerning the welfare of the persons concerned. It is a 20220-290
Interim Supply
heavy responsibility which is of constant concern to me.
Let us now examine the allegations made concerning


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but how many deportations did the minister say there were in 1963?


René Tremblay: There were 30 each week; that is an average.

Let us now examine the allegations which were made concerning the way the department dealt with some deportation cases.
It is alleged, first, that certain departmental officials have refused to carry out the necessary practices provided by our Canadian legislation, by neglecting to summon before the court, at regular intervals, persons detained for deportation.
Second, that department officials have deprived individuals of a natural right, by refusing or neglecting to let them know that they were entitled to the assistance of counsel and by not allowing them to secure such assistance.
Third, that individuals are kept in detention for an unreasonable length of time, because of the indifference or unkindness of officials who, as has been implied, act in a bureaucratic manner toward such questions.
Mr. Chairman, we should put the question in its proper light, and that is what I intend to do right now.
Immigration to Canada is a concession and not a right. To be a Canadian, or to become one, is a great privilege which should always be considered as such. That fact is reflected in the immigration legislation and regulations. Canada has the sovereign right to determine who shall be authorized to enter our country and become a permanent resident and to prescribe the terms and conditions to be met in order to gain admission.
If we do not want chaos to prevail in matters of immigration, Canada must apply the control measures required to deport persons who, somehow, entered our country illegally. Here, Canada, is no exception. All countries consider it essential to control immigration, and I think it is easy to understand why.
Parliament has passed legislation to protect the Canadian people in regard to such matters, and it is the responsibility of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to apply those measures.

Interim Supply
I prefer to be criticized for complying with the rules of parliament rather than to be accused of neglecting my duty.
I shall not go into the details here, in respect of the statutory cases resulting in deportation, such as criminal activity, illegal entry, etc. However, I should like to explain the methods normally followed in procedures for deportation. There are several stages. Let us consider, for instance, what happens in the case of persons who elude the law and procedure required for those who enter the country surreptitiously-like ship deserters-or in any other illegal way.
When they are arrested, those individuals are no doubt subject to deportation after the necessary legal action.
The question of illegal entry should not be taken lightly, Mr. Chairman. It represents a serious problem and I have no doubt whatsoever that, at least in some areas, there are organized rackets in this field. That method of entry also allows for the infiltration of members of subversive and criminal organizations. My department and other agencies concerned spend substantial amounts of money and make every effort to maintain the problem within reasonable limits.
First, for instance, when a ship deserter is arrested after evading the law and illegally establishing his residence in Canada, he is normally put in detention-


Mr. Peters:: A new immigration smear.


David Orlikow: Would the minister permit a question? He has made a serious allegation that it is possible that subversive organizations are involved in bringing people here illegally. The minister has a prepared statement and if we are to try to discuss this question which has been before parliament for a month or more we ought to have more than these veiled suggestions which really do not give us anything to work on; we ought to have some evidence of these supposed subversive organizations about which the. minister has just talked.


René Tremblay: I will finish my speech and after that I will be happy to answer questions by hon. members.

First, when a deserter from a ship is arrested after having evaded the law and illegally established his residence in Canada, he is normally detained, for obvious reasons.
Second, an inquiry is held with the shortest possible delay, as provided by law. May

I recall that, on June 3 last, I announced having introduced a new procedure to ensure the elimination of any unjustified delay in the case of persons detained under the Immigration Act. I mentioned more particularly that each case will be reviewed every day, here in Ottawa.
Third, in each inquiry, the individual is asked whether he fully understood the object of the procedure, and whenever there are any language difficulties, he can avail himself of the free services of a competent interpreter. I know that unfavourable comments have been made about those interpreters. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) drew my attention to certain allegations in this respect.
I immediately ordered an inquiry. The interpreters were questioned and I can categorically state that, in those cases, the charges proved utterly untrue.
Fourth, in every inquiry the person concerned is informed in the clearest possible terms, of his right to a counsel's help. The government does not assume the lawyer's fees for the person involved. If that individual asks for counsel, which is frequently the case, the proceedings of the inquiry are suspended to give him time to retain a lawyer. That appears in the minutes of each case.
Various cases have recently been drawn to the attention of the house by hon. members who alleged that individuals were deprived of certain rights respecting their own defence. Investigations were carried out in certain cases and it has been established that those allegations were unfounded. Those individuals were told that it was not required for counsel to be a member of the bar-


David Orlikow: May I ask the minister a question?


Lucien Lamoureux: The minister apparently wishes to complete his statement. He said a moment ago that he will answer questions when he is through. I suggest to the hon. member that if that is the position the minister is taking he should be allowed to complete his statement.


David Orlikow: The minister can do it however he wants to do it, of course. I wish to say, however, that he has already made about five statements with which the information that some of us have is in complete conflict. If the hon. gentleman wants to be on his feet four, five or ten times in the next few days it certainly will not bother me. If he

would prefer us to ask questions now, I think that would save time, but the minister can take his choice. I just want him to know we intend to discuss this matter in some detail.


Lucien Lamoureux: The minister wishes to complete his statement and I think he should be allowed to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the minister should be allowed to read his statement without interruption.


William Arnold Peters: I do, too.


René Tremblay: I think it would be useful for me to do that because our discussion would then be in the right perspective when we come to it.

Then, in each case this is shown in the report. Recently the attention of the house has been drawn to various cases by some hon. members. They claimed that individuals had been deprived of certain rights concerning their own defence. Inquiries have been made in certain cases and it has been found that such allegations were unfounded. These individuals are told that it is not necessary for counsel be a member of the bar; he may be a minister, a priest, a friend or a relative.
Hon. members raised the question as to whether the government should provide, free of charge, legal services for the individuals concerned. I am keenly interested in this matter, which greatly exceeds the jurisdiction of my department, and I would like to study it more extensively.
Five, at the end of the inquiry, if deportation has been ordered, the individual in question is informed of his right of appeal to the immigration appeal board. He is also informed that he or his counsel may prepare written representations to be made to the appeal board, or that he may appear in person or be represented by his lawyer before the appeal board here.
Six, if he chooses to appeal, copy of the verbatim report of the special inquiry is forwarded to the immigration appeal board as soon as possible.
Seven, upon receipt of the verbatim report of the special inquiry, the appeal board sets a subsequent date for the hearing. The date will depend, of course, to some extent, on the number of appeals to be considered by the board.
However, in every case it is usual for the board to select a date at least ten days following reception of the notice, so that 20220-290J
Interim Supply
the appellant or his counsel can prepare the arguments or take steps to be represented at the hearings if he wants to.
Eight, the appeal board, after reaching a decision, advises the appellant and the immigration branch.
Nine, if the appeal is rejected, the immigration branch must take steps with a view to the deportation of the individual in question, unless there are strong humanitarian reasons to defer those steps. Such administrative action, in many cases, is not as simple as one might think.
The individual in question might very well have lived in Canada under a borrowed identity. He may no longer have any identification as to the place of his birth or his citizenship. Representatives of foreign governments in Canada will not grant travelling warrants or landing guarantees for the deported individual, unless his citizenship is certain, which often requires confirmation from the authorities of the country of origin.
The transportation company that is to take the deported person to the country of destination must confirm the identity of the person and the liability of the company in that matter, before accepting to supply transportation.
Then, final transportation arrangements must be made and they depend on prospects and arrangements over which the department has no control.

It will be obvious to all that the various steps outlined above even when carried out with all possible dispatch will still require a considerable period of time to complete. I have already assured the house and I assure it again that I have taken steps to make certain that there is no undue delay in handling these matters.
At the same time I would not like this house to overlook one other frequent cause of delay in deportation cases. In order to give the person detained the benefit of extended consideration of any matter which may be in doubt, such delay is often of considerable duration, but I make no apology for it. Under the Immigration Act the minister has the authority to re-open inquiry proceedings if there is any substantial basis for belief that new evidence may be introduced which would have a bearing on the decision originally reached. Frequently, even when transportation arrangements have been completed, I or my senior officers are informed that additional representations are

Interim Supply
about to be received from responsible agencies or individuals, including members of this house.
On the eve of deportation or even within hours of scheduled departure I have instructed the department to postpone deportation to allow consideration of the new material. If there is evidence in favour of the individual which might have a bearing on the decision reached at the inquiry, I will order the inquiry re-opened. On the other hand, if there is another element, for instance a strong humanitarian factor not previously exposed, I am always glad to review the whole case personally to determine if there are grounds to suspend deportation. Again I say that I make no apology for delaying removal in these circumstances brought about by the individual or someone acting on his behalf. As long as I am minister I shall ensure that I and the officials of the department do not act in a bureaucratic and arbitrary manner to remove anyone with undue haste, if there are valid reasons for reviewing the original decisions.
I have dealt, thus far, with those policies, practices and procedures involved in the process of apprehension, inquiries, appeals and deportation which require time to complete and which come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for administration. I should now like to mention another factor, outside the scope of this department, which has a bearing on the lapse of time between the start of deportation proceedings and their ultimate completion. It must not be overlooked that in gaining entry by stealth and remaining in Canada without authority, a person has committed an offence. The individual thereby makes himself subject to prosecution in the courts of this land established under provincial jurisdiction. While the immigration process is under way the authorities responsible for deciding whether prosecution will take place carry out. their own investigation. Where a charge is laid, the matter then becomes one for disposition by the courts.
The scheduling of appearances in court or the handling of these matters before the court are not matters which come within the purview of this department and I do not feel it proper for me to comment on them. This is very important to understand: as soon as a decision is taken to press charges before a tribunal of provincial jurisdiction, I cannot, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, intervene in any way whatsoever.

I would, however, like to say a word about detention under the Immigration Act, both as to the need for it and the procedures which apply to it so far as the courts are concerned. It is far from an over-all practice to detain all persons who may become subject to deportation proceedings under the Immigration Act. Many individuals are released on a cash or other form of bond, or in some instances on their own recognizance where the special inquiry officer is satisfied that they will respect the conditions of their release and report as required under the law. This is a matter for the considered judgment of the special inquiry officers, whose responsibility it is to ensure that the proceedings can be carried on to completion. Persons are not kept in immigration custody unless there are good and valid reasons for believing that they may abscond if released or that they present a threat to safety or to the security of Canada. As to immigration officials not bringing persons detained under the Immigration Act before the courts for review at regular intervals, the legality of the detention is always subject to verification by the courts, on habeas corpus. As hon. members are aware, this frequently happens.
The minister and the department are responsible for the administration of the Immigration Act. In these difficult cases which are currently before us, every effort is made to deal with them in a decent and humane way. I have been studying the system and considering it, however, during my few months in office and I would not claim that everything is perfect as it now exists. In my own view, for example, it is both desirable and urgent that consideration be given to making the decisions of the immigration appeal board final and not subject to ministerial discretion as at present.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to comment on some of the regrettable allegations imputing misbehaviour on the part of immigration officials concerned with deportation proceedings. It has been suggested, for example, that officers have, by threats or promises, endeavoured to persuade individuals to furnish information on other illegal entrants or to coerce persons into admitting they are guilty of an offence under the Immigration Act. I have checked these allegations and have found no evidence to support them.
Before concluding, I would like to take this opportunity also to indicate the character of the planning going on at present in the immigration branch, better to enable them

to carry out the mandates of parliament. The government's program in immigration is a positive one-a greater volume of immigrants than in the past few years, and with higher selection standards. That requires a greatly increased effort to make the attractions of Canada and the opportunities here for immigrants better known. The immigration branch has in it many devoted, hard-working and capable persons, but the branch has been badly in need of planning and rearrangement that will better equip it to meet the tasks of 1964 and the years ahead. This is imperative even to keep up with present demands, let alone to meet any expanded program.
Such planning has been under way for several months. It involves a functional approach to the administration of immigration, not only at the headquarters in Ottawa but elsewhere in Canada and overseas. The divisions of the branch will correspond to the stages in the flow of immigration itself, beginning with policy and planning, moving on to a selection of immigrants, then to their reception and settlement in Canada, and finally to those exceptional but difficult problems involving enforcement of our immigration legislation here and including such elements as deportation and, on occasion, prosecution. With the branch reshaped in order to reflect each phase as it occurs, staff can be used to much greater advantage and many of the present difficulties eliminated.
Provisions will be made, among other things, for an active promotional program overseas to attract good immigrants and for more effective public information programs in Canada to explain immigration and to develop broad public support for the government's objectives in this field. The re-organization planned will involve a limited number of added positions and a reclassification of positions in order to attract and to retain people who can give service of the standards required. Additionally, the physical facilities for immigration in Canada, and especially overseas, badly need improvement since the offices where potential immigrants are dealt with are too frequently dull and unattractive. It is necessary that we make an effort to improve these conditions if our immigration program is to be really positive and productive.
Every procedure in attracting immigrants, in their processing, their selection, transport, reception in Canada, their placement, their settlement and whatever follow-up is necessary, will, it is planned, be sharpened and
Interim Supply
brightened in such a way as to ensure a favourable outcome to the government's effort to expand immigration, both in volume and in quality.
In connection with the questions put to me, either in the house or from sources outside, regarding a number of persons subject to deportation orders and in some cases held in detention because of criminal charges in connection with offences under the Immigration Act, I wish to announce that I am tabling individual reports giving all the pertinent facts about each such case.

Mr. Chairman, may I table those two documents, one in English and one in French, which represent the list of the cases which have been discussed here during the last few days?


William Arnold Peters: Now give us the report from the one-man commission.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I ask the minister, what is the purpose of tabling these documents? Is he just tabling the documents so that they are available to hon. members who might want to consult them?


John George Diefenbaker: What do these documents contain? They must contain more than names.


René Tremblay: All the facts in each case. They are a review of all the facts concerning each case which has been brought forward either inside or outside the house. It is to enable hon. members to have all the facts.


William Arnold Peters: Read them.


Lucien Lamoureux: If the hon. minister wants to table them so that they will become a sessional paper, this would have to be done with the Speaker in the chair. Is it agreed we do that?


William Arnold Peters: We do not want them at all.


David Orlikow: There may be some question about this. When will hon. members be able to get them and when will we have the chance to study these matters? Surely these documents should have been tabled days ago, if we are to discuss them sensibly now.


Lucien Lamoureux: The only thing we can do now is to table them, I suggest at five o'clock, when the Speaker is in the chair. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Interim Supply


Lucien Lamoureux: I would bring to the attention of the minister that his time has expired.


John George Diefenbaker: Let him go on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


William Arnold Peters: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: The minister does not have the unanimous consent of the committee to continue his statement.


René Tremblay: I do have an announcement to make which is in answer to the hon. member for Skeena.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister gets to that question, one would like to see these documents which have been tabled to ascertain whether or not they should be tabled, or whether they are simply an exculpatory explanation of a case which has been before the house.


René Tremblay: It is not an explanation. They just give the facts and the dates.


John George Diefenbaker: I see. With regard to the other question, I am sure that all of us in the committee are most anxious to have the minister give a full explanation, because the longer the explanation, I hope the more the committee will know.


Lucien Lamoureux: That may be the position adopted by the Leader of the Opposition, but there are other hon. members sitting at the end of the chamber who are not agreed. I ask again whether hon. members give unanimous consent to allow the minister to complete his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lucien Lamoureux: Then it is agreed.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. friends. That is the end of my statement, but I now want to say that following a decision by the government the Minister of Justice and myself have secured counsel in the person of Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., of Toronto, and my colleague has written the following letter to Mr. Sedgwick:
This will confirm your appointment as counsel to inquire into the following matters and report to the undersigned and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
As you are aware, serious allegations have been made in the House of Commons and elsewhere in recent days that certain aliens have been unlawfully detained and deprived of access to counsel. In this regard I am enclosing the relevant copies of Hansard for the period May 25 to June 18. Other material .respecting these allegations will be forwarded to you within a day or two.
[The Chairman.]
The terms of reference are to carefully inquire into these allegations or any other allegation relevant thereto and to let us have a full report concerning the truthfulness of same.
Apart from the specific charges referred to we should also like you to inquire into the general procedure now being followed in relation to the arrest, deportation and prosecution of persons who enter Canada or remain therein illegally. Your assessment of the reasonableness and correctness of these procedures should be included in the report, together with any recommendations which, in your view, should be adopted in this regard.
You will appreciate that we would like to have your report at the earliest date possible consistent with the thoroughness with which we have requested that you inquire into this matter.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I now ask to table a copy of this letter with a translation in French.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: Might I ask the minister this. Was this appointment made by order in council? If so, on what date?


René Tremblay: No, it was a decision of the Department of Justice following upon a decision of the cabinet. It was a decision of the Department of Justice, acting on a resolution of the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: Do I understand the minister to say that the cabinet discussed this matter and then, without there being a formal order in council, the appointment was made by the Department of Justice?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, if I may just explain this, cabinet dealt with the matter last Thursday, I think it was, and recommended that both the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Justice retain counsel to proceed with whatever informal inquiry was required. Informal terms of reference were to be sent to counsel. This is not an inquiry under the Inquiries Act, at least for the moment. This is the retention of counsel both by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Minister of Justice for the purpose of inquiring into each of the matters which was dealt with or referred to in questions put in the house, with the instruction that counsel report to the two ministers, and also that he give advice on the procedure being followed, with whatever comments or recommendations counsel chooses to make. This may lead the way to a rather more formal inquiry, but it will allow us at least to obtain a ready and rapid answer to the questions which have been put in the house. It will also allow us, instead of having

the matter investigated and reported upon by the civil service within the department, to have the independent opinion of counsel experienced in these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that mean that the independent viewpoint will cover the whole field of the department of immigration in connection with the procedures now followed, and that Mr. Sedgwick, Q.C., will be asked to make recommendations as to what changes, if any, should be made in the department of immigration to meet extraordinary situations or injustices which have been found to exist?


Guy Favreau: I think the penultimate paragraph of my letter will cover that situation and answer the question of the right hon. gentleman in the affirmative. If I may be allowed to quote it, it says:
Apart from the specific charges-
That is, the charges relating to the specific cases mentioned in the house in the course of the question period and at other times-
-referred to we should also like you to inquire into the general procedure now being followed in relation to the arrest, deportation and prosecution of persons who enter Canada or remain therein illegally. Your assessment of the reasonableness and correctness of these procedures should be included in the report together with any recommendations which, in your view, should be adopted in this regard.


John George Diefenbaker: How are people going to have an opportunity to present their cases before Mr. Sedgwick? Is there going to be public notice given to anyone who desires to make suggestions or recommendations, and to point out cases that were not dealt with here-not charges as suggested in that letter, but allegations upon which questions were based? Is there going to be an opportunity for anyone to make representations to Mr. Sedgwick?


Guy Favreau: As I just said, Mr. Chairman, this is not a formal inquiry under the Inquiries Act. Our first intention is to have Mr. Sedgwick inquire into the specific matters raised here and to place before him the types of procedure which have been followed until now in relation to arrests, detention and deportation. It has not been our intention, as in the case of royal commissions, that a formal notice be given, but I think the right hon. gentleman may be assured- and both ministers will make it very clear to Mr. Sedgwick in further discussions with him-that he is not to refuse access to him of any person who, knowing about and being concerned, like quite a few of the hon. gen-
Interim Supply
tlemen here, is interested in making representations to him. He should accept these recommendations as fully and as readily as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: I think the word "charge" is improperly used in the minister's letter. There were questions asked in the house based upon information available, and that is far removed from the word "charge" as used in the minister's letter. Being very frank about what has been done, I would ask the minister whether it is his intention to make the various reports made by Mr. Sedgwick available to the house? In other words, are they going to be tabled, or are we going to be told later on that these are matters purely for the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and that we are not going to be able to see these reports?


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I want to reaffirm what I said last week, that this report will be tabled, will be available to all hon. members.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the proceedings and matters that are brought to the attention of the commissioner be a matter of record so that those of us who are interested can see the facts and the representations made? I must confess that this sort of commissioner or counsel advising the minister falls far short of what I understand by a public inquiry. I am wondering whether the hearings will be public hearings so that the public can be satisfied that these matters are being adequately dealt with by the commissioner. Is there to be a formal record? Will members of parliament have a chance to hear what representations are made, and to hear the facts revealed to the commissioner as counsel for the minister?


Guy Favreau: I want to make the position very clear and to repeat that this is not an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. Mr. Sedgwick has been appointed as counsel to advise the minister as to findings which he will make in relation to the allegations which are incorporated in the questions concerning the cases referred to here. I may add that we have gone further than that and we are asking him, again as counsel and as adviser to the minister-not as an inquiring officer reporting on a public inquiry-to assess the types of procedure that have been followed in the departments of immigration and justice with respect to the arrest, detention and deportation-and conviction, if you want-of

Interim Supply
immigrants, in relation both to illegal entry and staying illegally in Canada, and in relation to other aspects of the application of the Immigration Act.
But in view of the fact that he is being appointed or retained as counsel and adviser to the minister-and he has a wide experience, as my hon. friend will know, in the field of criminal and penal law, and also has experience in the field of immigration-his report will be a report to the minister, in the same way as counsel whom we appoint, for instance, to advise us independently as to whether or not a prosecution ought to be launched, does not submit a public report. However, so as to make sure that the house will not be deprived of the knowledge of the advice which will be given to the ministers in this report, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and I agree that the report will be tabled. But I wish to repeat that although this is not a public inquiry, not only do I not see any objection but it is my firm belief that the counsel should receive and consider any representations coming from outside sources and from persons who are interested in the matters with which he is concerned.
Further, I do not see that this will be the final means at the disposal of the ministers concerned to make themselves completely conversant with details relating to these matters, but I believe very sincerely that this, being given to an independent counsel, will entail a greater measure of assurance on the part of the public, to the effect that it will be done in a very objective and impartial fashion. This is why we have chosen that method rather than a commission of one or two, or more, civil servants conversant with the cases, to make a report to advise the ministers as to what in fact has taken place.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I recognize the high standard, calibre and experience of Mr. Sedgwick, but I wish to comment at some later time that I do not think this is the best form of procedure in the circumstances. But to be perfectly clear on the question, I would like an assurance that the advice Mr. Sedgwick is being asked to give is not confined to questions of arrest and formal orders of deportation, but also covers the procedure of special inquiry officers in respect to people seeking admission to Canada.


Guy Favreau: This is very definitely included, because it refers to the whole procedure relating to the arrest and deportation, so that between arrest and deportation there is the whole range of the procedure before the

inquiry officer. I may assure the hon. member for Greenwood that this is our clear intention.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I want to clear up one thing with the minister. When the Minister of Justice uses the word "charge" in his letter it conveys only one connotation to lawyers, and I want it made perfectly clear that that word is not accepted as a description of what took place here in the house.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I do agree with the right hon. gentleman that the word "charge" must be used and interpreted in its lightest possible sense.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, it is an interesting afternoon because first of all we have had an apology by the minister for certain procedures, and at the end of the apology we have had an announcement of an inquiry by eminent counsel into the very procedures concerning which we have just had an apology. I feel it is too bad that the inquiry is to be restricted. I have followed with great interest the various questions and the explanations made by both ministers with regard to what the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration referred to last Thursday, June 18, as the investigating commissioner.


René Tremblay: On a point of order, the word "commissioner" has been used in the English translation but the word I used in French was "officier" and that has been translated as "commissioner". I have never used the word "commissioner". I have used the word "officier".


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I thank the minister for his explanation. I had wondered about that. Nevertheless it points up the fact that Mr. Joseph Sedgwick, Q.C., whatever his title may be in the French or English versions of Hansard, will have to have the widest possible scope in his investigation. I am also glad to know that a committee of parliament will have his full report before them in order that they may study it. Then we will get down to the semantics of the word "charge" and so on as used by the Minister of Justice.


René Tremblay: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I said in the house that the report will be referred to the house. I think it was the hon. member for Royal who asked me to which committee the report would be referred. I said I would be very glad to table the report in the house, but that it would be up to the house to decide which committee, if any, would study the report. The undertaking we made was to submit the report to the house.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wonder whether I could ask the minister a further question arising out of that. Does the minister not think that there is some obligation on him either to find out what committee will look into this or to recommend a special committee being appointed? In my view the fact that a committee of the house is taking hold of the whole matter is far more important than the appointment of any number of eminent counsel from outside.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, I hope my time is not running while the ministers are consulting each other.


Lucien Lamoureux: I wonder whether we are still on the point of order raised by the minister?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Sedgwick's report is not to be referred to a committee of the house, then this is a lot of nonsense. We are wasting our time and we might as well go on to something else. It would be a grave breach of faith on the part of the minister if he were to drop the report on the table of the house and then allow it to lie there in limbo. I want to know what committee of the house the report will be referred to, and I asked this question last Thursday. It would be a shocking thing to have Mr. Sedgwick do this work and then have the report lie on the table. Is the minister going to answer me?


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for Greenwood-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I want an answer.


René Tremblay: -I will try to see which committee will be best suited to receive a report of this kind. On the other hand, as I said, it will be up to the house to decide which committee and at what time this report will be studied in a committee. It is not the business of the minister to decide or to announce to the house what committee will study this report.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Now we have a qualification. The minister now says that it is up to the house to decide which committee. Therefore I assume that there will be a committee and that the report will not just lie on the table of the house. If I may make a gentle suggestion to the minister, the very reason he stands here today making an apology is that he has been less than candid in his answers to the questions that have been quite properly asked by members over the last few weeks. The minister is taking refuge behind the law.
Interim Supply
The Hooper case is not within the law. There is no statute that says a man should be in jail for 90 days under these circumstances. The Vergakis case is not within the ambit of the statute.
I appreciate that it must be agonizing for the minister to reflect on some of these human problems. He says that he spent long hours reflecting. I assume Mr. Hooper had lots of time to spend long hours reflecting while the minister was reflecting. We were told that this whole thing blew up because of an administrative breakdown between Toronto and Ottawa. There are members here who seem to be able to travel between Ottawa and Toronto in a very short time any day. The problem is that the officers on the spot are not making decisions and the whole mass of detail has to be referred to the monolith here in Ottawa.
Last week the Ontario minister of reform institution set out a formula-I think this is a very forward step-that he directed to all governors of jails and other institutions within his constitutional jurisdiction. The purpose of the formula is to acquaint people with their rights. The minister, Mr. Grossman, said that because of the constitution he could not interfere with the candidates for jail of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration but at least he could let the department know regularly how long these people had been in these institutions. I hope that the Ontario formula will be followed right across the country so that the ministry of justice and the ministry of immigration in Ottawa will be able to take action when they receive information as to long and inordinate delays.
We were told not too long ago that we would be considering policies to excite the daring. Yet this afternoon we had a long explanation involving a backward step, so far as any such policy is concerned. In my opinion undue detention in jail is an intolerable thing and I say that the minister should be candid enough to admit the error and tell us what procedures he is going to take so that this kind of thing will not happen again.
Before interim supply is granted and we return to the consideration of what I like to term the artificially manufactured issue of the flag I should like to say one or two specific things about some departments of government and the policies they are pursuing. If it is the habit to speak in context or within certain guidelines, I want to do so in the context of the remarkable document published in Forum and also conjointly in Cite Libre in May of this year by a new

Interim Supply
group of seven. Like the group of seven who gave a distinctly Canadian aspect to painting half a century ago, I submit that if we follow some of the policies of today's group of seven we can give a Canadian concept to some of the issues facing us.
It still continues to amaze me that parliament, after it regurgitates the platitudes of debates on the speech from the throne and the cliches of budget debates, hardly ever gets the opportunity to debate on-going policy at all. I should like to refer to a remarkable talk at the Canadian conference on the family a couple of weeks ago by Dean Kaspar Naegle. He is a rather remarkable example that all immigrants are not bad, because this dean of arts of the University of British Columbia spent some time in a prison camp in Canada courtesy of the government during the last war. He reminded those of us who had the privilege of attending the conference of the stricture of T. S. Eliot, "Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind cannot bear very much reality."
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid Canadians cannot bear very much reality, either. All of us here must take some responsibility for the truth of the Eliot adage.
In the manifesto which is entitled, "An Appeal to Realism in Politics", the authors condemn the indifference of the public and private sectors of our society in the face of many problems. The authors say:
We declare our disagreement with most of the panaceas at present in vogue among our politicians.
Canada, today, is a country in search of a purpose. Emphasis on regional interests and the absence of leadership from the central government risk the utter disintegration of the federal state.
In the present context of Canadian politics, it is necessary above all else to reaffirm the importance of the individual-
This is a nice, old fashioned Tory adage.
-without regard to ethnic, geographic or religious accidents. The cornerstone of the social and political order must be the attributes men hold in common, not those that differentiate them. An order of priorities in political and social matters that is founded upon the individual as an individual, is totally incompatible with an order of priorities based upon race, religion or nationality.
I think we should all read this manifesto and take a good deal of it to our hearts. In this context I wish to make an appeal to the minister of citizenship and, I say this modestly, I hope it may help him in some of the unpleasant aspects of his department's policy. I do not hold any brief for Mr. Hooper who recently spent 90 days in the Toronto jail because of what I suggest is an exasperatingly

typical phenomenon-a breakdown in administrative communications. This case need never have reached the stage it did if two basic policies had been followed: One, the local officials in the department should have been able to make decisions, rather than refer every detail to Ottawa; two, counsel should be provided for everyone charged with a breach of the Immigration Act. This latter policy, in my opinion, should be followed in all cases coming under the Criminal Code or federal statutes. This would assure equal justice before the law.
Just the other night I had occasion to speak with a counsel in this city who gave up two weeks of his time to defend a person accused of a very ugly murder. This counsel did this because he had been asked to do so. I believe that in these capital cases the state should look after the counsel fee. This is now the case in the United States. We seem to like copying everything else they do, so it is time we copied this formula.
At the moment the minister is considering what action can be taken against the Greek citizens who admittedly have come to Canada illegally. In some instances they have lived here four or five years, have married and have jobs. If their only offence is illegal entry I submit that in the name of humanity, if for no other reason, the minister should exercise his discretion and permit these people to stay in Canada. I like the type of man who will try to get into this country illegally. I think he has a great future here. It shows a great amount of zeal and daring, qualities which the Liberal government professed to have a year ago but which seem to have been forgotten.
On May 1, 1947, prime minister Mackenzie King said in a debate in the House of Commons that it is not a fundamental human right of any alien to enter Canada, it is a privilege. As a matter of fact, the minister echoed those words today. This classic policy statement was made 17 years ago. I, of course, had not spoken when the minister did, but I think this statement could stand re-examination. By this I mean no criticism of evolving and widening immigration into Canada. I realize that a great educational process is involved and that attitudes must change. However, I am bold enough to believe that we who live in this opulent land in the western world can no longer smugly say that we have a fundamental, God-given right to this land, irrespective of the needs of our brothers in this world. In my opinion, this is the philosophy of 1964 and not-one expounded

17 years ago by Mr. Mackenzie King. The hungry and the wretched in the world are not impressed by Mr. Mackenzie King's narrow strictures. Perhaps while rights are being glibly exhorted in this world, a part of mankind will take up the slogan and adopt it.
Let these people stay in Canada. By their illegal entry, they have already exhibited the qualities of initiative and enterprise which should be useful to all of us. Here I should like to thank the minister for a letter handed to me just before this debate began. For over a year now, the social service council of the Anglican church of Canada has been trying to arrange with the immigration department, as an indication of our concern, the admission of 50 Hong Kong boys to Canada. These boys would be sponsored by and live with Canadian families. They would be given a chance to continue their education, either technical or otherwise. I know the minister views this plan sympathetically, and I am grateful to him for that. He, himself, has been to Hong Kong to check on the administrative procedures there. I earnestly request him to announce soon that his department will agree to this very modest proposal. We had hoped the boys could be in Canada during the early fall of this year so they could continue their education.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal for just a minute-I see it is five o'clock. Will I continue with my observations on interim supply?


Lucien Lamoureux: Order; it being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may go to the business listed on today's order paper as private members' business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In committee of supply, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Tremblay) referred to certain documents he wished to table. Does he have leave now to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.) moved:: That the standing committee on veterans affairs be empowered to consider the particular circumstances of Hong Kong veterans and to report their opinions and observations as to the special measures that could be undertaken to alleviate the disabilities resulting from the Hong Kong veterans' internment as prisoners of war.
Veterans Affairs
He said: This is not a very complicated measure. I put forward this motion because I am concerned about the lives and the livelihood of upwards of 1,200 Canadian army veterans who served just short of four years as prisoners of war in the Far East.
The men on whose behalf I speak in this house are the Hong Kong veterans and they are the survivors of two Canadian regiments -the Winnipeg Grenadiers and the Royal Rifles of Canada from Quebec city who, together with their brigade headquarters, were sent from Canada to Hong Kong in the closing days of 1941. As we all know, they were subsequently captured and imprisoned and, because this was so, perhaps this is a chapter in Canadian history which some of us would like to put out of our minds. I submit this is something which we cannot do. These men survived almost four years of prison camp life of a type unique in its severity. It was a time of trial for which they were not and could not have been prepared. The figures tell us something of the story. Of a total strength of less than 2,000 men, 228 were killed in the action which preceded the fall of Hong Kong. A further 19 died of wounds resulting from this action and 277 more died in prison camps. In addition, I calculate that another 150, or at least 10 per cent-the figures are not too clear-have since died. I suggest this is a high proportion, considering the age of these men.
I am a veteran and I take the view-I think it is shared by a great many other veterans- that a man has little claim on his country because of what might have happened to him when he was in uniform, but I do earnestly believe that the nation owes at the very least a decent life to veterans who did suffer lasting damage as a result of service in their country's cause. I am sure I can convince members of this house that there is ample evidence to suggest that the Hong Kong veterans, all of whom were prisoners of war, did suffer a great deal during their imprisonment and that they do continue in many ways to feel the effects-the lingering effects-of their imprisonment. Indeed, I believe we owe it to these men to pass the motion now before the house in order that we may establish the facts; in order that we may show these men that we are interested in their difficulties and are prepared to grapple with their problems, and if the existence of those problems is confirmed by the investigation, we must make it clear that we are ready to discharge the nation's responsibility.

Veterans Affairs
The number of prisoners involved in this motion is comparatively small. I am told there are about 1,250 Hong Kong survivors still alive. Most of them are easy to trace, because about 90 per cent of them are in receipt of disability pensions of one kind or another. In spite of their comparatively small numbers there has never been, as far as I can find out, since 1946 a thorough canvass made of these veterans to investigate and analyse their situations, although a sampling was taken in 1950, 14 years ago. I think such an analysis would be revealing. What is disturbing to me is the likelihood that we know little about the after effects and side effects of the type of imprisonment these men endured. For example, there seems to be a disproportionately high number of these men suddenly passing away at an early age without giving any indication that they were ill. The death rate is higher than in the case of a comparable age group. I am advised that one out of every 19 of the Hong Kong veterans who were repatriated is now blind, and that there are many more who have suffered severe eye trouble. It cannot be doubted that this is an unusually high proportion. I think it must follow that the possibility of such things happening has had a disturbing effect on these men. Again, I am told that one out of every five of them is suffering from some degree of hypertension, a dangerous disease of the heart. Although nine out of ten of them are in receipt of disability pensions, as hon. members know, unless a man has been receiving a disability pension to the extent of at least 48 per cent there is no provision for any payment to survivors. I am told that three out of every four of these veterans are in this category, receiving less than 48 per cent disability pensions. So it is no wonder they are worried. I think there are few of us in this house who would not be worried in similar circumstances. And their worry increases each time they hear of another early or unexplained death or disability among their comrades.
If the house, having considered the matter, would agree to pass this motion, I think we shall have taken a step in the direction indicated by the committee on veterans affairs which last year in its report dated December 12, 1963, recommended to the house the following:
In view of the special problems that time and experience have revealed concerning the Hong Kong veterans, this committee urges that a special study and survey be made of their problems and particular disabilities.
[Mr. Groos.l
When this motion is passed I hope the veterans affairs committee will see that such a survey is made. Before entering the house today I was informed that the Canadian pension commission is being authorized to undertake the kind of survey to which I have just referred. I was of course pleased to hear this, since it was in order to encourage such a course that I placed my motion on the order paper last February. However, I do not intend to ask that my motion be withdrawn. I feel that the two proposals-mine, and that of the veterans affairs committee-are complementary and I should like to feel that the members of this house through the committee on veterans affairs would have a hand in directing the course of the survey suggested. If I had my way I would recommend that the survey be not just a sampling, as it was in the past. After all, there are only about 1,200 veterans involved and, as I said before, these men are not hard to find. I think this survey should deal not only with purely medical matters, but that it should extend into the realm of livelihood-the difficulty of maintaining a home, making a living, and so on.
I see that in the past there has been some difference of opinion between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Hong Kong veterans association with regard to some of the questions which were discussed by the committee last year. When such differences exist, it is, I believe, our duty as members of parliament to find out beyond doubt which side is correct.
The committee last year was presented with a brief by the Hong Kong veterans association which indicated that the very serious lack of food and vitamins, and the general ill treatment suffered by these prisoners produced long hidden side effects which did not disappear when the men affected were outwardly restored to health. These side effects, as I must call them, seem to me to fall into four main categories; there is acute nervousness, heart conditions of one sort or another, trouble with vision, and fatigue. I should point out here, Mr. Speaker, that not all, or for that matter any of these troubles, apply to all Hong Kong veterans; there are some who have been completely rehabilitated and show no evidence of after effects from their wartime experience. But this should not blind us to the unpleasant fact that there is good evidence that an abnormally high number of these veterans are unable to hold on to their jobs in this competitive world. Too many develop serious eye troubles and too many,

as I have said, die suddenly at an early age, leaving behind them wives in their early middle age, and young children.
I was advised only yesterday that in Vancouver, where there are fewer than 200 Hong Kong veterans, three more have died within the past two months, and all three were under the age of 47. These are some of the Canadian youths who volunteered for service in their late teens and early twenties. Mr. Speaker, anyone who like myself, witnessed the return to this country in 1945 of prisoners of war from the Far East will agree with me, I know, that their appearance and their stories of their treatment as prisoners of war will not fade from our memories no matter how long we live.
Before putting forward this motion today I have satisfied myself that we do have a problem here and that it is the responsibility of this house to set matters straight. I have had some difficulty in gathering the facts supporting the motion, but I have had considerable assistance from members of the Hong Kong veterans association, to which I have referred, from the Department of Veterans Affairs and from a group of students at the University of Victoria in my own city of Victoria, B.C., and I would like to thank them for their help. I now seek the approval, the wholehearted approval, of the house for this notice of motion.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to back this motion of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos). The Hong Kong veterans are a really unique group in one particular aspect, I think. Although we had many prisoners of war in Europe, this group of prisoners was held for over four years under very, very inhuman conditions. I have known some of these veterans myself and I think there is one aspect of their service which I do not want to dwell on too long but which I think is rather unique in this respect. The Canadian soldier generally was well trained, and part of a soldier's training, I think, is to toughen him up so that when he is given the shock of war, the shock of battle, he is mentally prepared for it. A good many of these Hong Kong veterans were shipped over to Hong Kong with very sketchy training indeed, and I would submit that under these circumstances they would go into battle, and into prison, green and scared. I do not mean they would be scared of battle, because Canadian soldiers are magnificent troops, but I think this aspect of being untrained and not pre-
Veterans Affairs
pared for the shock of war had a decided effect in hurting their morale. They felt right from the start that they had not geen given a fair chance to prepare themselves for battle and for prison camp. In addition to that, they were held prisoner in the tropics on the most disgraceful rations you have ever heard of; in fact, some 5 per cent of them have become permanently blind, not to mention the very large number who died under the prison camp conditions. The boys who survived were the toughest of the lot; they were able to stand four and a half years of starvation rations and oriental brutality. As I have said, this bad morale contributed to their mental problem in thinking that they had been somewhat let down by the Canadian people who sent them over there.
Here we have an opportunity to undo, even at this late date, some of the harm that we did to these young men. One of the difficulties, I believe, the pension commission has come up against has always been our very sketchy knowledge of the main disease suffered by these veterans; I think you would call it a disease. They suffered from a vitamin-osis, which I suppose in lay language means being starved to death or to near death. The layman who does not know anything about it says, "Just feed him and he will make a complete recovery"; and some of them have apparently made a near complete recovery. However, I do not think very many of us here could face four and a half years of prison diet and the terrible morale conditions that existed in those camps and expect ever to make a really complete recovery.
These veterans die young. This is one reason-and I am quite sure the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), will agree with me- why we should give these boys every consideration and should take full advantage of section 70 of the Pension Act, which says that the benefit of the doubt should be given to these veterans in every case. They will not come and ask for help unless they need it. I have known some of these veterans personally. When they came back, although their sight was bad and they could hardly read, they went back to school. I know of one case-I will not mention him by name because he would not want me to do so- where the man went right through university and became a dentist. He was struggling along, often at the bottom of the class, and it was very difficult for him to make his grades. When he joined the army he was top-rate in intelligence and stamina and I would say that if he had gone to university

Veterans Affairs
then he would have stood at the top of his class, instead of being somewhere near the bottom. The only reason he ever did graduate was that he had that same grit and determination which is only too typical of these boys who have tried to rehabilitate themselves under great difficulty after returning home.
The evidence which I have to go on to assess whether or not they are 50 per cent pensioners-and that is what these boys want; they want to be entitled to a 50 per cent pension, particularly because this gives coverage, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, to their widows or orphans-is this: These boys are dying young. Just because we cannot state a special reason for their death and say they died of this or that disease, we know it is because they were prisoners of war in these camps. I know that the pension commission wants to treat all veterans in the same way, and some objection has been taken to calling them Hong Kong veterans. It has been suggested that perhaps they are asking for something special. I claim they are not asking for anything which we would not give to any other veteran under the same circumstances, because one and all they were prisoners for the same length of time. I think it is quite safe to group them together in this way and say that any man who spent four and half years in a Japanese prison camp is only 50 per cent effective physically.
I do not believe that any one of these men could go, for instance, to a lumber camp, work alongside other men who had not been through this struggle and be, say, any more than half as good. The whole principle behind giving pensions to soldiers has been based on their ability to earn their living with their own hands. We have never suggested that we should compensate a soldier for the loss of a great career on the stage, a career in law or medicine, or something like that. We have always said that we would compensate them in relation to helping, say, their fathers on the farm. If a man is able only to take care of the horses or to saw boards in the bush, we would give him 50 per cent pension. The fact that he is still six feet tall is irrelevant.
From personal knowledge of these men who have come out of these camps, having worked alongside them, I submit that they are no more than 50 per cent physically effective. If they were to come forward, either individually or as a group, and were able to say that there is plenty of evidence to show that

Hong Kong veterans are no more than 50 per cent effective in terms of physical ability, then I do not think there is any argument against this proposal. The main evidence before the pension commission has always been that of Dr. Crawford, who was in one of these camps himself. He personally is a magnificent specimen of physique. He has tremendous mental stability, which is doubtless shown by the fact that he is still able to carry a tremendous burden as medical adviser to the department. But I do not think we could use a man like Dr. Crawford as the criterion. Our job here is to deal with average men. We do not look for physical or mental giants when assessing the ability of the average soldier to stand up to this terrible ordeal. Therefore I think we must go further afield than a case like Dr. Crawford-and I am not being sarcastic in saying that. He is the hero type. He has been a hero in the way he has rehabilitated himself, and the contribution he has made since the war. I am not trying to cut these other fellows down, but the average man cannot be expected to put up with what these fellows put up with and come through with flying colours.
I think there is evidence which could be produced when this commission or board is set up. I think we could go to the Japanese themselves, now that the war is over. I am sure the Japanese must have had thousands and thousands of prisoners from other nations, and even their own, who were treated in the same way. Perhaps there is medical evidence to be found in Japan of this same disease from which our Hong Kong veterans are suffering.
I am very pleased to hear that some notice has been taken of our plea in the veterans affairs committee to set up such a commission, as asked for by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.); and I am sure there are other hon. members who would like to say a few words about this. We certainly do not want to talk this measure out. If it is only a question of spending a little money to make a proper survey, I would certainly recommend such expenditure. I would go further and say that if we are to take section 70 of the Pension Act at face value it would be no crime against the Canadian taxpayer to give the benefit of the doubt to any of these men who spent four and a half years in a Japanese prison camp, and to give them an entitlement to at least a 50 per cent pension, thereby protecting the wives who have stood by them all these years, and the children who make

it difficult to get along with a reduced scale of living. Because I submit these boys are just not capable of earning a living 100 per cent with their hands.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give support to this motion which has been proposed by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos). I believe it to be a very worthy matter deserving of the support of every hon member in this house. I personally know many of the veterans who came out of the Hong Kong affair, and I know something of the problems faced by practically all of these men. Likewise it has been my privilege to visit the cemetery in Hong Kong and to thoroughly explore the actual locations where the fighting took place, where many of our Canadian boys gave their lives and where many of those who are still with us were taken prisoner. I have seen some of the projects they were forced to work at through compulsory labour, before many of them were moved to Japan and other parts. In fact, when one lands on the runway at Hong Kong airport today he is landing on top of rocks carried there by the hands of many of these Hong Kong veterans during their period of compulsory labour while detailed in Hong Kong prison camps.
All of the Hong Kong veterans at the time of their return from imprisonment showed the adverse effects of their experiences in varying degrees. The treatment and care which has been given them subsequently has in many cases rebuilt physical bodies, and restored health at least in some measure. But one of the most difficult aspects of being able to judge just how much disability is involved as far as these veterans are concerned revolves around the fact that many of their disabilities cannot be measured as the normal disability from the effects of war is measured. It is comparatively easy to categorize a man's pension rights from the loss of a limb or other physical disability, but in the conditions under which these men lived for four and a half years they often broke down psychologically and physically in a way upon which it is very difficult today to place a measurement. Therefore it is my opinion that every one of the Hong Kong veterans is deserving of some kind of pension remuneration, and we should be thinking about this while we still have a sizeable number of them with us. Because they are rapidly leaving the scene.
Veterans Affairs
I have before me a statement which was part of a brief presented to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) by the Hong Kong veterans association. It concerns the increase of pension and the entitlement to medical care for these veterans. One statement in the brief impressed itself upon me and I would like to share it with others. It is as follows:
The psychological stresses to which Hong Kong veterans were subjected during their period of imprisonment were severe and long continued. Four years of rough treatment, beatings and constant threat of torture in many forms, stress of undernourishment, inadequate clothing along with forced labour under intolerable conditions, have left hidden personality scars which continue to lower these veterans' ability to adjust into normal civilian life. Even cursory observation of many of these veterans today will verify the permanent damage that was suffered under deplorable conditions experienced by no other prisoner of war.
This brings me to the point that it is not only the physical problem which these veterans face but also the psychological and mental problems, which represent even a greater difficulty sometimes than physical incapacity. They are not requesting any special treatment. If there is any group of veterans deserving of our consideration, I believe it is this group. What they have asked for is reasonable and should be considered. There would be no better way for these things to be brought into public focus than to permit the veterans affairs committee to undertake a study of not just a few but, as has been mentioned by the mover of the motion, of as many as possible,-in fact of all the veterans, in order to determine accurately what our responsibilities are to them.
I should like to outline some of the things these veterans are seeking. First, they are asking that present pensions be reviewed for all Hong Kong veterans. They are also asking that a revival of the survey started in 1950 be undertaken, and that there should be a yearly regular check-up of every individual. They are asking for the supplying of eyeglasses, and dental care without question. They ask for a study of the effects of avitaminosis and other diseases which they developed as a result of dietary deficiency. They ask for a study of the effects of beri-beri, pelagra and dysentery to establish without question the connection between them and their present disabilities such as optic atrophy, cardiac deficiencies, nerve destruction, stomach conditions, etc.
They are also asking an award of a minimum 50 per cent of pension for residual effects of avitaminosis to every ex-Japanese

Veterans Affairs
prisoner of war. The previous speaker mentioned that it was not fair to condemn them for seeking special privileges over and above other prisoners of war. It would be very easy to categorize all prisoners of war in the same class, prisoners who went through similar situations whether out of Hong Kong or some other place.
These men ask that all Hong Kong prisoners of war be given complete entitlement to normal pension provisions. I believe these are very reasonable requests. Therefore on behalf of this party I give our complete support to the motion and hope it will be passed by the house so that the veterans affairs committee may make recommendations covering these prisoners. In fact, I find it difficult to understand why this problem has been passed over for so many years. Therefore I would urge the house to permit the passage of this motion today.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion presented by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos). The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Bigg) quite correctly referred to the fact that these troops from the Royal Rifles and the Winnipeg Grenadiers went to Hong Kong in 1941 without top level training. There is something else that should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, and it is that the Hong Kong contingent was entirely without any mechanical transport.
The majority sailed on the Amatea, a British naval transport, on October 26, 1941. Originally it was intended that the force be supplied with 212 motor vehicles composed of 45 motorcycles, 6 Ford cars, 57 universal carriers, 63 15-cwt. trucks, 2 15-cwt. water tanks and 39 3-ton trucks, but due to various administrative difficulties none of these vehicles arrived at the docks in Vancouver until October 27 and 28 when the Amatea had already sailed, along with H.M.C.S. Prince Rupert, an escort vessel, which carried four officers and 105 other personnel.
What happened then is history. All the vehicles were loaded on the Don Jose, an American freighter, which set sail on November 4, 1941, bound for Hong Kong, but was re-routed to Manila and authority was subsequently given by the Canadian authorities to have these vehicles used by American troops. It may seem, Mr. Speaker, that I am digressing a little, but I think there is a lesson to be learned from this, and I am happy to see that in the white paper on defence, and in the all party special committee on defence,

matters like this are under consideration, so that we shall have transport available for highly mobile forces in future.
The casualties suffered by the Canadians in Hong Kong, due to fighting, and later malnutrition and the cruel treatment they received, were very heavy indeed. As a matter of fact, the losses from December 8, 1941 until December 25, 1941 were very heavy. At brigade headquarters five officers and 16 other ranks were either killed or died of their wounds, while in the Royal Rifles seven officers and 123 other ranks were killed or died of their wounds. Fatal casualties among the Winnipeg Grenadiers totalled 11 officers and 128 other ranks. But this is only part of the story.
They then suffered further harrowing experiences. Until 1943 they were all kept in prisoner of war camps at Hong Kong, and as a result of the deplorable conditions there four more officers and 124 other ranks died. It is of interest, as was pointed out by Colonel Stacey, in his official Canadian war history, that the losses would have been much more severe except for a very ironical situation. There was an outbreak of diphtheria in the camps and the Canadian prisoners were refused medical supplies to treat the disease. As a result of that they in turn infected some of the Japanese guards with diphtheria, and the Canadians were then taken off their heavy work details and placed in isolation. Perhaps, inadvertently, more lives were saved as a result of that outbreak than would otherwise have been the case.
In January, 1943, 1,183 other ranks together with one officer, significantly a Captain J. A. G. Reid, of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, were taken to Japan and were forced to work in various industries, chiefly mining. Again the conditions were extremely bad and this can be shown as evidenced by the fact that here 136 more men died.
I was very happy, Mr. Speaker, to hear my hon. friend from Victoria (B.C.) announce that the Canadian pension commission is now prepared to launch an investigation into the status of these Hong Kong veterans. I expect this investigation is designed to produce information about the Hong Kong veterans and to give some indication of points which will require further and more detailed investigation. I have asked for other information, and I would like to refer to an article concerning this whole matter, which appeared in the Victoria Daily Times of June 13, 1964. It is stated there that the death rate among

these men, referring to the Hong Kong veterans, is 27 per cent. I have asked for information on this point, and I imagine that there probably must be a typographical error because up to the end of 1963, 108 of the over 1,400 men who were repatriated to Canada after the war had died. This is a death rate of approximately 7.7 per cent. Certainly we are not happy about this at all and we must look into the matter further, but the figure is not 27 per cent as reported in the Victoria Times. I think this bears correcting.
There is no question in my mind that these men suffered more and for a greater length of time than the ordinary, if I may use that word, prisoner of war in other parts of the world. There is no question in my mind that they are deserving, not of special treatment but of treatment which will assure them justice.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief but I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) for having raised this matter in a private member's notice of motion, and I hope the government will do something about it. I have had the opportunity of being a member of the veterans affairs committee since I was first elected to parliament. Each year we have heard from the Hong Kong veterans association all the details and particulars of the special problems they have. These problems are many, and I certainly want to leave a few minutes for the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) who has had experience in prisoner of war camps. The problems of prisoners of war of the Japanese were considerably aggravated, it is generally agreed, beyond those of prisoners in any other prisoner of war camp throughout the world. These problems developed because of long exposure to foods unknown to the western palate and because of diseases unknown to the medical profession. When the association presented their brief last year this fact was admitted and expanded upon by the medical advisers of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The result was that the veterans affairs committee decided that this matter warranted immediate consideration and made a recommendation to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, as has been done on a number of occasions, that special consideration be given to these men.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Since 1945.
Veterans Affairs


William Arnold Peters: I am told by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that this has been done by the veterans affairs committee every year since the end of the war. Yet the Liberal government, the government of the member who introduced this motion, has been unwilling to do anything about the matter. We even had the sad spectacle last year of officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs defending their action in not granting some of the requests of these prisoners.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) outlined some of their requests. They asked for a 50 per cent pension because of the service they gave and when you apply this to 1,200 people it is small compensation for the suffering they have endured over the years. I do not think there is anyone in the house who disagrees with that suggestion. In my opinion it is up to the Department of Veterans Affairs to do something about the matter now and I hope that this measure will pass. To my knowledge the 60 members of the veterans committee are all veterans, and there are more than 60 members of the house who are veterans. Having that in mind, surely it behooves the government to give some consideration to this matter. I hope that the motion will pass quickly and that action will be forthcoming to assist these people. As one hon. member said, they are becoming fewer in number each year. Whether their death rate is 27 per cent or 7 per cent, it is much above the average.
We had people appear before us who obviously were suffering from disabilities such as beri-beri and heart and stomach conditions that were the direct result of their treatment by the Japanese while they were in the Japanese prisoner of war camps. I strongly urge that this matter be dealt with now and that the veterans affairs committee be allowed to get on with other matters, because the committee has already made a favourable decision with regard to the subject matter of this motion.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, like other members it is not my intention to speak at length or to impede the passage of the motion moved by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) in any way. As a matter of fact, if the record is examined I think hon. members will find that a similar suggestion has been made on numerous occasions. I recall that during the sittings of the veterans affairs committee some years ago I endeavoured to bring about a study of this matter because of cases that

Veterans Affairs
had been referred not only to myself but to other members, having in mind the possible influence we might have with regard to the determination of the course to be followed by the department or by the government.
I make the same plea to the present government as I made to the former government. The hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) has made it very clear, and other members have supported him, that these veterans require something a little different and a little more specialized in the way of treatment than other veterans. However, I should like to see included in this motion all members of the forces who were interned in prison camps.
I say that because of cases with which I am well acquainted personally. In the course of the next two or three days a veteran with whom I had the privilege of serving will be coming to Ottawa to determine if any assistance from the government is available to him because of the special circumstances mentioned by one member who participated in the debate. This problem is a continuing one. As my colleague who participated in the debate has mentioned, these people sometimes will not come forward themselves until it is too late. Sometimes it is the case that they have made no representations at all to the Department of Veterans Affairs since 1945 and therefore it is a very easy thing for the departmental officials to say that their condition is in no way related to their wartime experiences.
I think of names such as Bill Warren. I do not recall his home town but he was in the camp I was in, and I know this man has a justifiable case. His case has been before the pension commission on several occasions but now the door is completely closed. There is a widow in the province of Manitoba with a family of young children, and I know the difficulty this veteran had when he was in the camp. It was precisely his experiences there which caused his death. The same is true of my colleague and friend, Danny Evans of Toronto. There is also the case of a young widow of a year and a half ago in the city of Hamilton. Now we have this chap coming to Ottawa in the course of the next few days.
In each and every case their own doctors have said that their condition is attributable to the severe experiences they had in the prison camps. Some of us who were there may not show signs of what had to be endured. As a matter of fact, I recall that when I returned home I weighed approximately 128 pounds. I wish I were a little closer to that mark today, but that is beside the point. Some

people have not been as fortunate as some of us. There are quite a number of members in the house who have had these experiences and can well appreciate the sensible views that have been put forward today.
I appreciated the eight points that were set down by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). There is not one of them that would not apply to every colleague of mine who was in southeastern Germany. Perhaps our treatment was not as rough as that given out to the Hong Kong veterans. I qualified my remarks at the beginning with that statement. However, I wish the hon. member had included these people in his motion because the cases I have mentioned all seem to me to have a common denominator, and that is the life they endured as members of the services and the experiences they had to go through.
I could mention to the house specific instances. I can remember one day in particular when there was a great escape. The German authorities sent their storm troopers into the camp, about 300 of them. They were lined up across the front and down one side with their tommy guns at the fire. When they did not get the kind of co-operation they wanted, some officer in the wehrmacht blew his top and all of these guards started blasting down in between the camp, through the barracks and so on. This lasted for a period of two days. Throughout the whole night, people had to stand out on the parade ground, make fires, and so on. Though this is only one incident, but such experiences as these had a reaction on the people and left a mark on them. In addition, there were deprivations, diet and so on. There should be a recognition of the things mentioned specifically by the hon. member for Red Deer, as well as those referred to by the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.)
I should like very much to have this motion include all those who have been in prisoner of war camps. Dr. Crawford in the department knows that I brought this matter to the attention of the committee many years ago. He said that it was difficult to get any statistics covering these people because of the situation which exists in Canada. I did not know until a short time ago that this subject would be discussed today or I would have endeavoured to produce some of the information that was given to the committee at that time. I assure you that the statistics that have been given to us here apply equally right across the board to the people who have had these experiences. I will be very

satisfied if during the course of this particular study it is borne in mind that the people I have mentioned have particular rights. I have only referred to these cases from memory, but all cases of a similar type should be given special consideration. If this is done I will consider it a wonderful effort on the part of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.), the committee on veterans affairs and the Canadian parliament. I am grateful to the hon. member for bringing this forward now and I am pleased to support the terms of the motion.


Mr. Bernard Pilon (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker-


William Arnold Peters: If you are not a veteran, don't talk about it.


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: I should like to remind the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that I am a veteran.


Mr. Winch:: All we want you to do is not talk out this resolution.


J.-E. Bernard Pilon: I shall just take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to add my own comments to those of the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) and all the other previous speakers.
As the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) said, we should consider the case of all the prisoners. A great deal has been written about the Hong Kong incident, as pointed out by the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Temple), but I do not believe the Canadian government of the day was responsible for what happened as far as transportation was concerned.
We appreciate the fact that veterans who were taken prisoners in Hong Kong have been badly affected. I recall that one of my friends had to face the firing squad four times in the same month. We came back to Canada, suffering from malnutrition, and the matter should have been considered many years ago.
I would like to mention here the fact that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said a little earlier that the Liberal party was to blame. To that I say, that at the present time a commission is studying the case of the Hong Kong prisoners and that this study will be much more comprehensive than anyone might imagine. That commission will consider the possibility of those prisoners
Business of the House
obtaining life insurance, pensions when they need them, because Canada is aware of the debt it owes them.
Mr. Speaker, before closing, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Victoria and all those who spoke before me.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with those who have expressed gratitude to the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos) for focusing the attention of the house on the problem of the Hong Kong prisoners, which is set forth in the resolution now before us. I think hon. members should understand that the purpose of this motion is already being served, because the Canadian pension commission has already undertaken a survey of this problem following the recommendation made in the report of the standing committee on veterans affairs.
In order to refresh the minds of hon. members, may I read that recommendation which appears at page 430 of the report:
In view of the special problems that time and experience has revealed concerning the Hong Kong veterans this committee urges that a special study and survey be made of their problems and particular disabilities.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it the intention of the hon. member to talk out this motion when it is obvious it would be passed unanimously by this house?


Chesley William Carter: Well, I was just about to point out to the hon. member that if this motion were acted upon now we would only be duplicating what is already being done by the Canadian pension commission.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Let us duplicate it, then.


Mr.   Carier@: This proposed study could be more properly undertaken after the Canadian pension commission has completed its survey. Hon. members should read the motion and realize what it asks the house to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Shame.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows:

Interim Supply
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), statements by Arnold Heeney regarding the commonwealth.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: As we have wide rules of relevancy in this debate I wish to say a word or two now about the question of Canadian unity.
I have much sympathy with the aspirations of Quebec and its so-called quiet revolution. I think we in the rest of Canada must understand that this revolution is directed as much against the past in Quebec as it is against the rest of Canada. I think we must remind ourselves of the French fact in Canada and of the perfectly natural desire for this great culture to preserve its language in a changing country and a changing world. Having said that, I say with great respect to my Quebec confreres. Do not let the quiet revolution become so inward looking that its aspirations make Quebec a narrow, insulated community in Canada, in North America and in the world. If this is the consequence of the present movement, it is a movement in defiance of man's progress in the 20th century. Nationalism in the restrictive sense became outmoded when bombs fell on Hiroshima. Turn outward, so that Canada and the world may share the fruits of your culture and your learning. As the manifesto which I discussed earlier this evening puts it:
The future of a language depends upon the dynamism of those who speak it. ..To use nationalism as a yardstick deciding policies is both sterile and retrograde. Overflowing nationalism distorts one's vision of reality, prevents one from seeing problems in their true perspective, falsifies solutions and constitutes a classic diversionary tactic for politicians caught by facts.
In saying this I do not speak only to Quebec. I speak about all those manifestations of nationalism current in our land. Little Englanders must not be transplanted here as little Canadians. To quote again from the manifesto:
The most valid trends today are toward more enlightened humanism, toward various forms of political, social and economic universalism. Canada is a reproduction on a smaller and simpler scale of this universal phenomenon. The challenge is for a number of ethnic groups to live together.

It is a modern challenge, meaningful and indicative of what can be expected from man.
I have no trained and sophisticated mechanism which can tell me what is in the minds of the people of Canada, but I have a hunch that we parliamentarians would be surprised to learn that the truth of some, at least, of what I say, is well understood by many people all across this land. I suggest-and here again I adopt the words of the manifesto-that to confess one's inability to make confederation work is, at this stage of history, to admit one's unworthiness to contribute to the universal order.
I cannot think that Canadians of whatever origin-as if origin mattered-are going to turn our backs on what Sir Ernest Barker calls, in an important book, "The Tradition of Civility". Canada is indeed a small reproduction of that part of the world which established for men everywhere the great salutary rules which are part of what Walter Lippmann terms the "public philosophy"-the "public philosophy" from which springs freedom of religion, of thought and of speech. Some of this public philosophy is embedded in bills of rights, other parts in jurisprudence and others in constitutions.
Sir Ernest Barker puts it this way:
The rational faculty of man was conceived asr producing a common conception of law and order which possessed a universal validity-
I am suggesting that it is our duty and responsibility to make sure it does not wither and die from neglect. It is a greater responsibility than a design for a flag or a revision of a constitution. It is of more importance than preserving an international boundary or a parochial pattern. The list of Canada's priorities-and this is what I believe we are considering-is too long for me to capitulate in any detail tonight. But it includes the fight against poverty-and may I remind hon. members that dramatic schemes to clear city slums leave untouched that wasteland of rural poverty which can be seen in too many parts of my own province and, I suppose, in others. It includes unemployment, particularly regional unemployment, and the parallel problem of the inequitable distribution of wealth and income. It includes the pollution of our streams and rivers and the erosion of our soil; it includes ruthless exploitation of some of our heritage; it includes the monotonous pap of some of our radio and television programs, which seem to be based on a denominator which is often subterranean. It includes an antiquated penal system where, too often,

punishment is substituted for rehabilitation; crowded hospitals and a lack of decent provisions for proud and honest men to settle their doctors bills. It includes people who will not recognize the French cultural fact, and the reasonable wish on the part of this cofounding race to maintain its tongue and enlarge its share of the development of the whole of Canada. It includes, unfortunately, a still pitifully inadequate foreign aid program and, with great respect to the minister of citizenship, a much too restrictive formula for immigration into this country.
Mr. Chairman, I said we had a responsibility, and I think we do. We have a responsibility to public opinion, and I am going to suggest that public opinion is not just an unworked lump of dough; it needs yeast to make it work-and I suggest that it is our responsibility to be that yeast. Walter Lippman reminds us that, "The naively democratic theory was that out of the mass of the voters there arose a cloud of wills which ascended to heaven, condensed into a thunderbolt, and then smote the people". We as political people-and I am proud of that adjective -know that this is not so.
James Reston wrote in a column in the New York Times on March 28:
We must not demand the serenity of faith without the agony, victory without the struggle, solvency without the taxes, leadership without the .criticism, peace without sacrifice, and salvation without conviction.
CTranslation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity, when we are discussing interim supply, to raise a few points which we would like to stress in the hope that the government will bring about some improvements.
One of the first points I would like to bring up is one I have repeatedly mentioned in the house. Unfortunately, we did not see any improvement in this field. I am speaking of the behaviour of employees in the Quebec office of the income tax department.
After my having complained time and again in the house, the Minister of National Revenue suggested that I should submit to him the cases I might have so that he could examine them and see what is wrong with the office of his department at Quebec. During the past two months-and the minister will be able to -confirm this-I have sent him at least three score letters from people in the county of Lapointe who were dissatisfied with the decisions of the inspectors at the Quebec office.
Mr. Chairman, I hardly know whether the minister looked into those cases, or whether
Interim Supply
he had some inquiry made to see what was happening in his department, but there is one thing I know, which is that we always get the same routine: the inspectors of the Quebec office of the Department of National Revenue behave like dictators and tyrants, depriving people of their savings.
I have received some letters signed by the Minister of National Revenue to the effect that his inspectors in Quebec had consulted the parish priests in their rectories. Now, parish priests from the riding of Lapointe have sent me sworn statements to the effect that no inspector from the Quebec office has ever come to their rectory to secure information in that connection. The minister tells me that his department's investigators in Quebec have made enquiries with the parish priests and the latter send me sworn statements to the effect that such allegations are entirely untrue.
Mr. Chairman, I will send those sworn statements to the Minister of National Revenue and I think it will then be time for him to open his eyes and realize that officials of his department in Quebec are purely and simply robbing the people by reducing their deductions for charitable donations, though there are receipts signed by parish priests who swear that the inspectors of the Department of National Revenue never came to see them.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that is serious, because we are told that enquiries are made when there are none. What happens is merely that an official stays at his desk in his office where he makes an arbitrary decision to rob the people of their income.
Those dictators of the income tax office make a great show to try to get promotions, and when they can make the Department of National Revenue save a few dollars, such promotions are given to them under the pretext that they are good servants.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the minister that they are not good civil servants, but dictators who discredit the government and the Department of National Revenue in public opinion. It is because of such attitudes that the citizens of the province of Quebec rebel more and more against the dictatorial action and the gangsters of the income tax in Ottawa.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time that we raise this problem in the house, but such cases are excessively numerous; the hon. member for Villeneuve gave evidence for half an hour in this house, I myself did the same and, during the last two months, I have been sending every day to the Minister of National

Interim Supply
Revenue evidence of cases of injustice in my riding, in Quebec city and vicinity. We always get the same commonplace and unsignificant answers: "We had the file sent to us and the inspectors tell us that they made an inquiry, that they went to see the parish priest and that he said that such and such taxpayer had not given such an amount to charity".
Those parish priests write to us again to tell us that it is false and that the officials of the Department of the National Revenue did not see them.
Those individuals in the Quebec office are failing in their duty and, in my opinion, the minister should start an investigation immediately so as to control their activities, and more particularly those of a Mr. Gingras and of a Mr. Audet, of the Quebec income tax office, who are often rude in their replies or are content with sending the same replies in every case-


Mr. Gauthier:: Circulars.


Gilles Grégoire: Circular letters, as stated by the hon. member for Roberval. The officials of the Quebec office always give the same answer. "After going through your file, under such and such a paragraph, or such and such a section of the act, your receipt for charitable donations has been reduced to $300, $200 or $100". In most cases, the matter has not even been investigated.
I am asking the Minister of National Revenue to have the activities of those Quebec office dictators investigated, for that office is discrediting the Ottawa government in the province of Quebec, because of those people's behaviour.
I believe that the minister should consider this request, because if he does not, we will bring all the cases before the house-sworn letters, affidavits, etc.-and put everything before the minister, and more particularly the actions of some inspectors whom I shall name again so that the minister may take note of them: They are Mr. Gingras and Mr. Audet, of the national revenue office in Quebec.
I think that Mr. Paquin, who is in charge of that office, would also need to be called to order, as he does not properly supervise his employees' attitude in his own office.
Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me that this is somewhat surprising, when the minister writes me-the letter does bear hon. Mr. Mcllraith's signature, i.e. the signature of the Minister of National Revenue-to say that, on his instructions, his officers went to a rectory to get some information with re-
[Mr. GrSgoire.l
gard to a particular case, and the priest, in his turn, sends me a letter under oath certified by a notary, to the effect that nobody from the national revenue office ever appeared at his rectory to ask for information on this matter.
You will admit that the minister at the other end, who sent that letter, should feel somewhat ashamed because he cannot rely any more than that on his officials. Personally, when I send a letter to someone under my signature, I check its contents before signing it. This is not what the minister does. Moreover, when it is letters of this kind, it does not bother him at all, and he does not even bother to check certain affidavits, like those he received from my riding, before signing the letters stating that an inquiry has been made. The minister should get better information than is the case at the present time. I can state that no such thing would happen with letters signed by me.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let us take another department. I see that the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) are not present, but since we are in the farming season, I should like to make a request to the government, through the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Forestry, whichever department is concerned.
We realize that in the province of Quebec there are not enough farm credit advisers. There are many applications made by farmers for loans. Unfortunately, there are not enough farm credit advisers or inspectors to go and make inquiries at the place of all the farmers who make applications, so that the granting of loans is delayed and, of course, the farmers are delayed in their seeding or in their crops, and it is Quebec agriculture that suffers.
I think that in a province such as Saskatchewan, with 15 or 16 counties, there are 37 inspectors or supervisors of farm credit. In the province of Quebec, with a population seven times larger, there are hardly 16 of them.
1 think that all members of the house will recognize that there is discrimination there. I am in favour of those 37 advisers or supervisors of farm credit in Saskatchewan, and if they want more, I am not against it. But when there are not enough in the province of Quebec to meet the needs, I cannot help but protest.
That leads me to say that there is something wrong in our system. I think that there

is overlapping by the federal government and the provincial government in too many fields.
There is some in agriculture. When something has to be settled in agriculture, steps must be taken with the provincial government and then with the federal government. It takes time to convince the provincial government and then it takes time to convince the federal government, and it takes even more time to convince both of them together. When some ARDA project has to be carried out, it has to go through the provincial government and the provincial government must go to the federal government and then it comes back to the provincial government, so that the delays are three times longer than if there were only one government to look after that. The same thing happens with respect to winter works. The municipality applies to the provincial government; the matter has to be referred to the federal government, then it is returned to the provincial government, and, finally, it comes back to the municipality.
This implies a loss of time, some delays causing trouble for interested parties and bodies. As regards winter works ARDA and farm credit, pension plans and any other field, we see two governments interfering with each other; each has a decision to make, each one has its own legislation, its rules and regulations. In such circumstances, delays are bound to occur and everything is being neglected.
This leads us to conclude that an end should be put to those programs where two governments must be consulted and where two governments must legislate before results are obtained. In my opinion, the federal government should withdraw purely and simply and leave sources of income to the provinces in order that they may be in a position to deal alone and by themselves with such problems, and that these be settled sooner and to everybody's satisfaction.
It is obvious that if the council of ministers, before reaching a decision, was obliged to consult the cabinet or the council of ministers in Mexico, our country would suffer because it would take from now to doomsday to get action. That is exactly what occurs in every field with the joint plans.
There are too many governments, too many different things, too many levels of government, so that everything is delayed and everything is bungled. This leads us to an inevitable conclusion; the federal government must withdraw as soon as possible from joint plans
Interim Supply
to allow the provincial governments to legislate in the fields these plans cover at present.
What creates most problems nowadays in Canada for the federal government, for provincial and municipal governments, and also for individuals, is that the Canadian citizens, in the economic field, do not think as Canadian citizens but as a colonized people subject to other countries.
I read recently, and this is one of the things which disgusts me the most in our country's administration, that in our international trade, we had, during the last three months, in our goods account only, a surplus of $47 or $48 million. On the other hand, we notice that we have a deficit of approximately $375 million concerning the outflow of money.
Why all this? Because each year there is $1,200 million-this is a huge amount, Mr. Chairman-which is paid by Canada to other countries for interest, dividends or benefits to foreign companies who are developing natural resources of our country.
I came back yesterday, having held several meetings in the Chicoutimi county, in an area where we find a good number of lumbermen. Now, these men are cutting wood for $5 a cord, are paying their room and board in the forest, and their power saw at the end of the season; they come back more indebted, having barely enough to live on, while foreigners, who do not even come and fell a single tree in our forests, who do not even know what our trees look like, collect the profits and lead an easy life in other countries thanks to the profits due to the labour of our people.
Mr. Chairman, I say that the Canadian people today, are an economically colonized people who only work for wages, while the benefits, dividends and interests are going at a rate of $1,200 million a year to foreign countries, to make their capitalists richer.
If that problem were solved, if there were organized in this country a system whereby we would remain masters of our natural resources, of our industry, of our forests and waters, we could keep the benefits, dividends and interests for ourselves and each year our country would be $1,200 million richer.
Imagine what we could do with all that money. We could build schools, colleges, universities, pay our professors and build hospitals.
And in the province of Quebec, persons who are ill have to wait 15 days, three weeks or a month to be admitted to hospital, because there is a shortage of hospital beds.

Interim Supply
Mr. Chairman, with $1,200 million we could build hospitals, roads and bridges, we could develop our industry and increase family allowances. Can you imagine what would be within our reach if dividends earned in Canada remained in our province? Unfortunately those profits go elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what is wrong with this country; it has no control over its capital, and its credit and its citizens remain small wage earners while foreigners make all the profits. I have nothing against their getting the profits in their own country but I object to their laying their hands on the profits in Canada just because they can afford to provide the required capital and we cannot.
When we settle that problem a lot of others will be solved at the same time. When we can create our own credit and keep our own profits instead of letting them fall into foreign hands, then quite a few problems will have been solved.
Those are the few comments I wanted to make.
I also wanted to refer briefly to a rather typical example of patronage. We have just found out that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has seen fit to hire, at $7,500 a year, an individual who works for him in his riding of Matapedia-Matane. I am wondering whether there are a great many immigrants in that constituency or if the man's job is to look after patronage or to prepare elections on behalf of the minister.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
The hon. member said that I hired an official and suggests that he is looking after patronage in my constituency. I will point out to the hon. member that this official belongs to my Ottawa office and that he has always been on my staff, but it is true that he has been performing certain duties, which I am unable to do as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in my own constituency.
Since Mr. Andre Cote has been appointed to my staff, he has never dealt with political matters either in my constituency or in the province. He was exclusively appointed in Ottawa and in my constituency, where I cannot deal with the correspondence of every case submitted to me as a minister or a member of parliament.


Gilles Grégoire: I feel that the minister did not give us enough information, but it is easy to see what it means.

In my riding, when constituents complain that the bandits of the income tax division have cut down their receipts for charitable donations, I am the one who has to settle the matter. It is never done by an official, because the department does not want the matter to be settled. But when this happens in the riding of Matapedia-Matane, the minister has an official deal with the matter on his behalf.
The same applies when problems relating to farm credit and unemployment insurance have to be settled. We have to write to the Quebec office, but inspectors are too few and it takes time to settle the matter. As for the minister, he is lucky, because he has someone in this riding to look after farm credit and unemployment insurance matters, and when a tax problem arises and the bandits of the income tax division do not want it to be settled-


Norman Platt Lambert: Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member uses the word "bandit" to designate officials of the Department of National Revenue, he goes far beyond the parliamentary terms used in the house, and I would therefore ask him to withdraw his words.


Gilles Grégoire: I do not know whether the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was here a while ago when I mentioned tioned that inspectors stated that they made inquiries in rectories and that parish priests claim that they have not received the visit of an inspector. Then, when I see that inspections are being made directly in the inspector's office, and I can prove it, I find that we are using the term very loosely. I do not know how the hon. member calls that, but I think the term is quite proper and I will not withdraw my words. I will only withdraw them if it is proven that I am wrong. But, it will not be proven, not with all the facts I now have. The term is sufficiently loose not to go beyond what I have in mind.
If the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration wants to present in his constituency-


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has asked the member who insulted the federal officials to withdraw. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to make a ruling on that question of privilege.


Gilles Grégoire: Maybe these problems do not occur in the riding of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard). It is also possible that if he would visit his electors a little more often, he might realize that this problem is there. As for us, we want to serve the interests of our electors, and that is normal. We object because we know that in

his riding the situation is similar and I know that his electors complain, the same as in other ridings; that is why I am surprised to see his attitude, to see him rise and make-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think the hon. member for Lapointe, in the remarks he is now giving, is making them directly against officials of the department. If he has any criticism of the department to make it would be more in order if he made it to the minister.


Norman Platt Lambert: The civil servants are not here to defend themselves. You are being cowardly.


Gilles Grégoire: It is obvious that I am making remarks and that I cannot treat the minister like that, since he does not take such action himself; his senior officials do it for him, because if he had to deal with all the cases, he would really have too much to do. On the other hand, his responsibility is to see that his officials do not behave like they do and, if they behave badly, it is his responsibility to set his department in order.
As I was saying, I think the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane is very fortunate to have been able to hire a civil servant solely to look after such problems. They take up a lot of our time, because our electors feel that things are going badly in all those fields, income tax, farm credit, unemployment insurance. As far as the minister is concerned, he has somebody to look after all those things. But we have no one. The minister is assisted by officials to do his research work in the house. He even employed some one to go and see his electors and calm them. As far as we are concerned, we try to settle those things directly with the department without any patronage in the riding. The minister should avoid patronage when he employs someone to look after all his little worries and try to quiet the discontented ones and make friends with them.


René Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.
I do not think that members can use the word "patronage" to describe the services rendered by someone to all the electors of a riding who have needs or requests to be made known to the government.
Therefore, I ask the hon. member to withdraw the word "patronage" to describe the services rendered by a member of parliament, by a minister or by one of his officials 20220-291
Interim Supply
who deals with the correspondence and tells the minister about the goings on in his county.
I do not think that we can use the word "patronage" to describe such activities and, therefore, I ask him to withdraw that word.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question of privilege, let the minister see to it that there is an individual like that in every riding in Canada. Then, when there is one everywhere, we will not hear the ministers' say: It is because they want to arrange their little schemes in their ridings.
We do not have such employees; we have to spend our week ends visiting the homes of those farmers, seeing electors, but we see them, we talk with them, we know them; it is not officials who do our job for us because we go and see our own people; this is much more satisfactory, because when we come back to the house, we can say that as representatives we talk knowingly because we visited them, we saw them, we met them and we discussed their problems with them.
Mr. Chairman, the minister did not tell us exactly what were the duties of this Mr. Cote who is paid $7,500 per year to work for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because I imagine that the minister must have many immigrants in his riding of Matapedia-Matane. Can he tell us what are his duties and what cases he tried to solve down there? Perhaps the minister could give us more details and inform us of the duties of this official, and then perhaps patronage would not be mentioned so much.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted, while we are discussing interim supply, to avail myself of the opportunity of expressing some views, because it is not always possible to vent our thoughts on various issues.
I wanted to deal with farm credit, for while I think that inspectors are doing a good job, there are too few of them. I would ask the government to increase the number of supervisors and farm credit advisers, more particularly in the province of Quebec, to answer the need.
I also would ask the Minister of National Revenue to put some order into his department, more particularly in the Quebec office.
And, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) were able to give this country a financial system enabling Canadians to develop their own industries, natural resources and trade, by their own means, instead of having them developed by foreigners, then

Interim Supply
we would keep our profits at home, and develop Quebec better than we do now.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, in the early part of his remarks, the hon. member for Lapointe dealt at some length with the Department of National Revenue, of which department I am the acting minister. In the course of his remarks he referred to the civil servants of the department as tyrants, dictators, robbers and several other terms of that nature.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He does not know any other language.


George James McIlraith: I merely want to point out that it is quite contrary to the usage and practice of the house to refer to civil servants in that way, for the rather obvious reason that it has always been thought to be improper to refer to persons who are unable to defend themselves. It is improper to take advantage of the privilege of the house-where they cannot reply-to use language in reference to them that could not be used outside the house without incurring the responsibility consequent on such actions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Spank him some more.


George James McIlraith: I think the abuse of the correct practice and procedures of the house will be apparent to anyone who gives the matter any thought. Having objected to this wholly improper practice, I think I can leave the matter there for the moment.
The hon. member's other remarks concerning the department had to do with claims for charitable donations by taxpayers in certain parts of his constituency, those claims in a large number of cases having run to 10 per cent of income. There has been some question whether or not these claims for charitable donations were made due to a misunderstanding of the law or whether in fact the amount of money claimed as having been donated to charities was actually so donated.
As I understand the duty of the minister, it is to see that the act is administered fairly. That implies that each taxpayer is treated fairly under the provisions of the act-


Gilles Grégoire: They are not.


George James McIlraith: -as the law requires that they shall be treated. Under our modern system, practically every citizen is a taxpayer and it is important that the taxpayer who pays his taxes should know and be able to feel that all other taxpayers are being

required to pay their taxes on an equal footing under the law. If that has meant the investigation of certain individual cases, surely that is the necessary and proper thing to do.
Each case the hon. member has referred to me has been checked or is being checked. When he says that he sends a letter a day about some particular taxpayer, I can only tell the committee that he is being quite accurate: In fact, I thought it was more than a letter a day. In any event, whatever the number, these cases are checked in each instance to find out if these people have been treated fairly and in accordance with the law. As best that can be done, it is being done.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


George James McIlraith: As I have indicated, in some areas there is a misunderstanding as to what the law is.


Gilles Grégoire: The misunderstanding is in the department.


George James McIlraith: The fact is that actual donations up to a maximum of 10 per cent of income are what are allowed, but there seems to be an impression in some areas of the hon. member's constituency that there is an allowance of 10 per cent of income for such donations, which is quite a different thing. I assure the hon. member that as long as I have the responsibility as acting minister for this particular portfolio, the cases he refers will be looked into and dealt with. If he has any particular complaints and can substantiate them, I will be very glad to receive the information and, they will be looked into.
The hon. member also referred to the matter of affidavits. Offhand I have no recollection of receiving any such affidavits, but if there are any such affidavits that appear to be in conflict with our information or to add information that has a bearing on a particular case, I certainly will be glad to see that they are properly examined to make sure that the law is administered with absolute fairness. This is the only way that a system as all-embracing as our present taxation system can be administered.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask the minister a question?


George James McIlraith: By all means.


Gilles Grégoire: Is it not a fact that in many of the cases I have sent the minister the people were claiming only 6 or 7 per cent of

their net income, and not 10 per cent as the minister mentioned?


George James McIlraith: No, I would not agree that is so. The point is that they are only entitled to claim what they actually gave to charities. That is the point. They are only entitled to claim what they actually gave up to a maximum of 10 per cent of their income.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration were a philosopher instead of an economist I suppose he could console himself with the fact that the criticism he and his department have received in the last month or so is the same as the criticism levelled at nearly every minister of citizenship and immigration for the last 15 or more years. I think the only person who escaped that criticism was the minister who preceded him, and I suppose he only escaped it because he did not remain in the department long enough for some of us to get at him.
I think that anyone who wants to be realistic will realize that the minister is not entirely responsible for the difficulties in which he finds himself, but rather it is the Immigration Act, the regulations drafted for the administration of the act and the administration itself which has become so involved and so obviously discriminatory that it is impossible for the affairs of the department to be conducted without criticism being forthcoming.
If we have been harsh on the minister in the last month or two it is because the minister has been so quick to rise to the defence of not only his deputy but every single person who works for the department either full time or part time. Let some member of the house, or counsel for one of the people who have been in trouble, suggest for a moment that possibly the interpreter who works part time for the department, I assume, may have left the wrong impression with one of the people involved, and the minister is immediately on his feet to tell us that neither the interpreter, any other member of the staff nor the deputy minister has ever made a mistake. He tells us that the department is perfect and always has been perfect.
I have had dealings with ministers of this department before and it is not surprising that after a minister has been on the job for eight or ten years and has worked closely with his department he comes to feel that the officials are very fine people, which they probably are, and that they do not often make mistakes. But I want to tell the minister that I 20220-2911
Interim Supply
have never known a minister before who developed this kind of departmental paralysis so fast. He has been on the job only a couple of months and already everything is perfect.
From the very beginning when these cases were first raised we have had a series of explanations, excuses and denials and even today when the minister announced he was appointing eminent counsel to look into this matter he still denied that anything was wrong was done. I suggest to him that if nothing was wrong there was no need to have an inquiry. The very fact that he has authorized an inquiry indicates that the minister finally realizes that possibly there is something which needs to be investigated. While we welcome the inquiry, I must say that I for one have a good deal of doubt about it because I am not quite clear how it will work. I am not clear whether Mr. Sedgwick is going to hold hearings, where he is going to hold the hearings or whether they are going to be held in public. I am not quite clear whether there is going to be a complete record kept of everything said, whether all the people involved are going to be heard, whether counsel for these people who have had difficulties are going to be heard, whether the press is going to be allowed to be present.
If the minister had taken the advice of the people on this side of the house who asked the questions a week ago and talked to the people who made the complaints, talked to Mr. Hooper and the lawyers who acted for these people, we would not be debating this matter today. Probably, we would not have had to have this inquiry.
I should like to raise briefly a couple of matters which the minister mentioned this afternoon when he made his statement. First of all, he left the impression with me, and I am sorry I have not the text of his address before me, that he was suggesting that possibly a good deal of the trouble was due to the fact subversive organizations are involved in these illegal entries. This is a rather serious charge. I think it ought not to be made by the minister unless he is prepared to give to the house and the country some kind of evidence of what has happened, some evidence upon which he bases this statement. If he does not, Mr. Chairman, certainly the members on this side of the house are going to treat that kind of suggestion with a great deal of scepticism.
Then, I was concerned about the minister's statement, which he has made again and again, not about whether people have been told that they could have legal aid, but his

Interim Supply
assumption that they could have legal aid, but that it was their responsibility to get that legal aid. I want to suggest that the people who are here legally, especially those about whom we have heard, are very often people who cannot speak the language. They have not got many friends and certainly have not got much money. Even if they are told they can have counsel, I think it is expecting too much to expect them to be able to get counsel.
I have before me, Mr. Chairman, the minutes of an inquiry held in the case of Mr. George Sarris on March 31, 1964. I should like to read one question put by the inquiry officer to Mr. Sarris, so the minister will understand what I am talking about. I quote:
If you so desire and at your own expense, you have the right to obtain and to be represented by counsel at this hearing.
I want to suggest that that is not good enough. A person charged with being here illegally, either at an inquiry or during court proceedings, should be able to get counsel, and he should not have to pay for it himself. I have before me, Mr. Chairman, the transcript of a court hearing in which four people, including Mr. Sarris and Mr. Thomadakis were charged-I intend to discuss this case later. This hearing was on April 10. I have the transcript here and not once during the course of these hearings were these four accused informed by the person representing the department, or the magistrate, that they were entitled to get counsel through legal aid. They were not told that if they were not ready to go ahead they could have their case postponed until they could make arrangements to get counsel. Not one of these hearings could have taken more than two or three minutes, because each one covers one page of typing, double spaced.
This afternoon the minister said that when a criminal charge is laid it is no longer the responsibility of the department. I want to take issue with that completely. I am not so concerned about the letter of the law. I believe every person is entitled to counsel. In no case where you have an indictable offence should a person appear without counsel. In a case where you are dealing with immigrants who do not have friends, do not have people to represent them, I think it is the responsibility of the department to make sure that counsel is obtained. Whether the department pays for this service or somebody else pays for it is, in my opinion, a very small matter.
I am glad we are going to have an inquiry because, after all the weeks we have been

discussing this subject, after listening to the long statement that the minister made, I still do not know to whom he spoke. He told us that everything was okay, but did he speak to anybody outside the department? Did he speak to the people who have been held for long periods of time, who have been taken to the court, charged and sentenced? Did he speak to their counsel? I think the story which counsel for the people concerned tell is entirely different from the story which the minister tells. I am not saying that the minister came into the house today or any other day and deliberately misrepresented the facts. I am suggesting however, Mr. Chairman, that there comes a time when any minister should go outside of his department so that he can get the whole story.
There are some questions which I think have to be answered, and perhaps some of the answers are in the documents the minister tabled today. I think we have to know how many people are now being held or were held in Toronto and in Montreal. I think if we look into the situation in Montreal we will find it is not much different from the situation in Toronto. How many people were held or are being held for more than a month before their hearings? What opportunity did they have to get counsel? I think it is important to look into the charge which has been made by my friend, the member for Greenwood, who has had a lot of experience in this field. He has said that very often people are told, off the record, during the inquiry, that of course they can have counsel but it really won't do them much good; they might as well get on with the job. It is a very serious thing, I think, and we need to look into this matter. Were they told not only that they could have counsel but there was counsel available without cost to them? I do not think so, because there is nothing in the transcript which would indicate this. Were they, in fact, told it would do little good to get counsel? I will come back to that a little later. Were they told it may go easier for them if they pleaded guilty? All these charges have been made either by counsel representing the people concerned or by others. These are very serious charges and I certainly hope Mr. Sedgwick will get some of the answers.
There are other things we need to know. Why are these people held in the Don jail? After all, this is looked upon as a prosperous land, a land of milk and honey and the people from the have-not countries want to come here. We cannot blame them. I am not saying we should allow all those who enter il-

legally to stay. However, if they come here, why do they have to be held in the Don jail or Bordeaux jail until their hearing is held? I understand that some of these cases take quite a long time. It has been suggested that while they are in jail awaiting their hearings they are treated just like anybody else in jail, it is assumed they are already guilty, although the trial has not yet been held and very often not even an inquiry has been held. I am told they cannot have visitors more often than a couple of times a week. I am told that the number of letters they can write is severely restricted. It seems to me this is completely unfair. It seems to me that these are questions which need to be looked into and looked into thoroughly.
Now a serious charge has been made. It has been asserted by a number of people, including a minister, Father Koulouras, who was friendly with many of these Greek seamen, that until recently when the department found people who were believed to be here illegally, a hearing was held and, if it was decided they were here illegally, they were deported quickly, and that was the end of the case. Father Koulouras claims that the whole business of charging people with a criminal offence in these circumstances began very recently. Until the practice was changed, the men apprehended were allowed bail until their cases were heard. Now Father Koulouras says, the men are being charged, which means, of course, that they have to stay here longer while they are being brought to trial, and, if found guilty, they are sentenced to periods ranging from one month to five months in jail.
I want to know what is the purpose of charging these people and sentencing them to jail. Is it true, as is being said openly in Toronto, that the department has reached the conclusion that there are a large number of people here illegally? The figure which has been mentioned-and I have heard it mentioned in more than one place-is 700. The department, it is suggested, has estimated that there are more than 700 people here illegally; the administration wishes to set an example and wants to discourage these people from coming here illegally. Is this why, instead of being deported immediately, they are being charged and sent to prison?
Another serious charge has been made by a number of these people and I hope Mr. Sedgwick will look into this. Several of them have said-I will not go into detail today, but newspaper reports have quoted them-that they were told while being questioned that
Interim Supply
if they would tell the department the names of people they know are here illegally, so that the department could apprehend those people, they would not be charged and, therefore, they would not have to serve a sentence before being deported. This charge has been made by a number of the people concerned. I can only describe it as blackmail, and I think that blackmail, whether carried on by a government or by an individual, is completely wrong and ought to be stopped. I do hope Mr. Sedgwick will look into this matter -that he will get to the bottom of it, and if this kind of tactic has been used, it will be stopped immediately.
This may be threshing old straw, but this is the kind of case which led to the Minister of Justice saying that he intended to institute an inquiry. I wish to deal, in fact, with a few of these cases which have come to light. A great deal has been made of the Hooper case. Maybe the minister feels he has been hard done by in the columns of the Toronto Telegram because he is a Liberal, and the Telegram is a Conservative newspaper. Well, I have before me an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. If there is any newspaper which will find more reason to pat a Liberal government-any Liberal government-or any minister on the back, I do not know of one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not exist.


David Orlikow: I wish to quote from this article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on June 1, 1964. It is headed: "Disregard of Human Rights" and it was written by Maurice Western. I wish to quote a few paragraphs just to show the minister that this affair disturbed not only members of the house and not only the Conservative papers; it became a matter of concern to everybody. I quote:
The minister made the point that Mr. Hooper was originally held in custody not only on the immigration count but also because of a charge brought by Toronto police. This was, however, withdrawn on March 15 and it is therefore indisputable that the department was solely responsible for his confinement in the Don jail for 72 days. Nor can the previous three weeks be left entirely out of the reckoning, for this time was presumably available to officials in preparing their case.
From March 15 onwards Mr. Hooper was held "undue the authority of the Immigration Act" and on March 23 the inquiry got under way. Because of his refusal to answer questions the inquiry officer adjourned the hearing to April 7 when other evidence was produced to establish his unlawful entry. Mr. Hooper was ordered deported and did not appeal.
But he was not then deported. Instead he was kept in Don jail for another 45 days while the

Interim Supply
department considered whether or not it would lay the charge which was ultimately to be dropped. Mr. Favreau on Thursday frankly conceded that there had been "certain delays" which had been "occasioned in the administrative machinery in processing this matter."
Later the paper says:
Why was Mr. Hooper without counsel while all these administrative processes were moving majestically to the climax of May 22 and anticlimax of May 25? Speaking of the situation on March 23, Mr. Favreau told the house on Thursday that "he had been given ample opportunity to retain counsel if he wished to do so".
Further on, the article states:
This does not, however, throw much light on the circumstances. Mr. Hooper is a Negro, probably of limited means. Was he aware that he could obtain legal aid? Was he assisted in finding it or left to his own resources? Mr. Brewin, a lawyer of integrity and wide experience in immigration eases claims that it is "the practice of special inquiry officers to notify people of their entitlement to the right of counsel and then tell them it is not worth their while having a counsel because in effect a decision has been made before the hearing".
Mr. Hooper's charges may be quite baseless. The fact is, however, that they cannot be tested because after these incredible delays the charge was made, only to be swiftly dropped in favour of deportation. Suspicions linger and they will not quickly be dispelled if Mr. Tremblay persists in the attitude that whatever is departmental is right. Mr. Favreau did, however, make a more favourable impression with his assurance that steps will be taken to prevent the repetition of such an occurrence in future: an assurance to which the ministry will certainly be held.
And this is from the most Liberal newspaper in Canada.
I hope the minister will reconsider some of the remarks he made on May 28 about the Hooper case when he said-and I quote:
I would state, therefore, that Mr. Hooper was held prisoner under Canadian laws and enjoyed all the privileges granted to a Canadian resident even though he is not a Canadian citizen.
If the only rights Canadians have are the kind of rights which Mr. Hooper got, then God help all of us.
I wish to deal, now, for a few moments with what I thought was a most moving plea sent to the Ontario supreme court by Mr. Thomadakis who was held in the Don jail for a long period of time. I read a few paragraphs so that they will be on the record for the future when this case is forgotten- and when more cases of this kind may occur, unless the minister takes this situation more seriously than he has done until now. I quote from the statement this man made on March 3, 1964:
On March 3, 1964, I was arrested without warrant by immigration officers. I was very co-operative an

help them as much as I could. Had I want to escape I could have as I was given opportunities by being left alone.
However, around 3.30 p.m. on March 3rd X was taken to Don jail. I was not advised of any rights and not allowed to call lawyer. I did not know what I was charged with and did not make an appearance in court or before any authority.
Two days later the immigration come to see me and question me about how I come to Canada. They did not tell me any rights or that I could have lawyer.
I do not speak English very well and the jail authorities did not help me to understand my position. On 3rd or 4th of April the R.C.M.P. came and tell me why I was arrested for the first time.
Here again we have a period of five or six weeks:
On April 9, 1964, I got a letter saying I would go to court next day. I had not chance to get in touch with anyone as the letter came in afternoon and jail regulations say I must put in requests in the morning.
No one told about legal aid. I have great trouble explaining things to the guards and everyone says it doesn't matter. I went to court on April 10 (38 days after my arrest) for the first time.
I had no lawyer and interpreter for immigration told me to plead guilty and I go home.
I want to interject for a minute and point this out to the minister. This is what Mr. Thomadakis says; I repeat it:
-interpreter for immigration told me to plead guilty and I go home, If I make trouble and plead not guilty I go back to jail until the case comes up again and maybe I get a heavy prison sentence. I plead guilty but I still do not understand.
Even if Mr. Thomadakis is not completely right, the very fact that an illegal immigrant, 21 years of age, who does not know the language, thinks this is what happened to him is, I think, an insult to the kind of justice which this country provides. The minister on a number of occasions has said that he checked into this particular case and that this did not happen. I asked the minister-and Hansard will show this was done three weeks or more ago-to contact the lawyer for Mr. Thomadakis, and the minister rejected my suggestion. I was not as squeamish as the minister; I called Mr. Mintz, who has acted for a number of these people, and here are the notes that I made of that conversation. Mr. Mintz said that he got in touch with the interpreter. He said that the interpreter said she told Mr. Thomadakis, "You can plead guilty or you will be found guilty; and if you want to get things over quickly, you had better plead guilty". I am not saying the minister knew this is what the interpreter was saying, but I am saying these whole procedures need to be looked into.

The same day on which Mr. Thomadakis was convicted in court a Mr. Georgios Sarris appeared in the same court.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I understand that the hon. gentleman is now speaking of the proceedings before the court; is that right? Was this the interpreter who interpreted to that immigrant before the court, or is the hon. member referring to the proceedings before the board of inquiry?


David Orlikow: This is the interpreter who acted in court. What I said was that Mr. Mintz quoted her as advising Mr. Thomadakis to this effect. It was not said in court; it was said before the court proceedings.


Guy Favreau: May I put a further question, Mr. Chairman? Is the hon. gentleman aware that the interpreter in court is an officer of the court and of the province; he is not an officer of the immigration department or any other department of the federal government. Is the hon. member also aware that normally if a judge is not sure whether a plea of guilty is motivated by the proper factors, it is he who normally must inquire into the reason for the plea of guilty, and the judge is free to accept or refuse the plea of guilty. But one thing that ought to be made clear is that from the moment a person is before a court under the jurisdiction of the province, the officers of the court are within the authority of the province, and not of the federal government; and the proceedings, as far as the plea of guilty is concerned, are within the authority of the judge himself. It might make some difference.


David Orlikow: I do not know what difference it would make to Mr. Thomadakis or to Mr. Sarris whether the people they were appearing before represented the federal government, the immigration department, the Department of Justice or the provincial government. In the final analysis, the end result was the same; they wound up in jail. I do not think it makes a hoot of difference who was responsible. I am sure that the Minister of Justice, who has a great number of tasks to perform, has seen this transcript; but if he has not, I will be glad to send it over to him. This is a transcript of the proceedings in which these four people were concerned. And I repeat what I said earlier, namely that the whole proceedings could not have taken more than 15 minutes. Nobody-not the representative of the department, not the magistrate or anybody else asked these people if they understood what was going on. No-
Interim Supply
body asked them if they had counsel. Nobody asked them if they knew they could have counsel.
What difference does it make whose responsibility it was I have said before, and I say it again-and perhaps we will have more success with the Minister of Justice than we have had with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration up till now-that I think it is our responsibility to make sure these people are properly represented. We should take a leaf from the decisions made recently by the United States supreme court, to the effect that every person in every case involving an indictable offence is entitled to counsel, and if they do not have counsel they cannot get a fair trial. I think we should stop splitting these legal hairs; I am not too concerned about that aspect of the matter and I will leave this to my legal friends, who do a very good job. But I am interested in seeing that these people receive some kind of justice, because they did not get it and they are still not getting it.
There has been some question about how old Mr. Sarris was, but I think it is now established that he was not more than 17 years old when he appeared before the magistrate. He was 15 years old when he committed the offence of entering this country illegally. He was 16 when he was apprehended. He was, as I say, the ripe age of 17 when he was convicted. I wonder what purpose there was in giving Mr. Sarris a jail sentence. Could he not have been simply deported, because he was guilty? He pleaded guilty. This would have solved that problem. But no, he had to get a jail sentence.
The minister said on one occasion that there were only six people who had been held more than 30 days. I am speaking from memory now. The Telegram, on the basis of information given to them by Mr. Mintz, who has been counsel for many of these people, had a list of about 22 people. I hope the correct information is in those documents which the minister tabled today.
I want to deal with one more matter, Mr. Chairman, and then finish by reading from a letter which the minister received. I do this to show that this kind of thing cannot help but bring our kind of justice into contempt. This case was reported in the Toronto newspapers on June 16 in which three people were brought before the magistrate and were permitted to go free until their trial, on bail of $500. The three people are Nick Polycratis, Peter Theodorou and Steve Kafouros. Bail was put up for them by a Mr. Bassel, acting

Interim Supply
on behalf of the Greek-Canadian congress. Each of the three men was given his clothing and taken upstairs. But in each case the immigration department still had a hold order in force

so back down to the cells they went-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


David Orlikow: I will only be about two minutes, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to finish my remarks.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: In these three cases, back down to the cells they went, to take off their own clothing and put on the jail uniform again. I am sure the Minister of Justice could again read quite a lecture on how they were given bail and how these were proceedings against them in a criminal court; but the provisions of the Immigration Act, which we are going to discuss on another occasion, do not give the minister or the department the right to hold people in this way, and I am sure the minister thinks these people must have been very confused. I am sure they did not know which side was up by the time the magistrate had finished with them. To be told by a magistrate that they were free to go on bail, and then to be told they could not go until hours or days later, must certainly have been confusing.
I want to finish up by putting on the record a letter sent to the minister by Mr. Mintz and Mr. Weisdorf, both of whom work for the legal aid organization in Toronto and have had a good deal more experience with this kind of case than I. Their experience has been both hard and bitter. I will just quote a few paragraphs from the letter which they sent to the minister, which I think summarizes the situation better than I could:
We request an admission from Mr. Tremblay that he recognizes the excesses carried out under the harsh, dictatorial provisions of the Immigration Act by his administrative officers.
Once this is conceded, the government should convene a royal commission to investigate the prevention of administrative excess in the future -either in the form of an amended Immigration Act, or in a uniform code of procedure for all administrative officers and tribunals, or in the institution of the office of ombudsman.
The abuses which the legal aid department has recently brought to light are certainly not limited to the department of immigration, but occur on every level of industry and government.
CMr. Orlikow.]
Wherever employees of any organization are given untrammelled power, unchecked by the judiciary and hidden from the light of public opinion, injustice is bound to occur.
Mr. Chairman, I will end on those words to the minister and I hope that he will pay some attention to them in the next few weeks.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to deliver a lecture for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, first of all because I am not too good at that sort of thing and I am afraid that having not taught at university for quite a few years I have probably lost touch with teaching. But one thing I do want to say, which is in no way intended to do away with any responsibility that any federal department may have, is that because of the division of responsibilities-I will not say powers, because I hate the use of that word under the British North America Act-between the federal government and the provincial governments it so happens that in the course of a few weeks or months one and the same person has to cope with authorities which in certain phases are federal and in certain phases are provincial.
The hon. gentleman was referring a few minutes ago to what happened to one person whose case went before the courts. The reason I raise the matter is because the interpreter involved was surely not a federal officer, and could not be given instructions by the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration or the Department of Justice. Therefore, it was up to the court to decide whether or not, in view of the fact that this detainee was not perfectly possessed of either the French or English language, which are the two official languages of this country, he was not totally conversant with the consequences of his decision in deciding to plead guilty.
All I mean by that is that in a series of facts and circumstances one must try to ascribe responsibility to the proper authority. I do not mean to say that there was any wrong act or action on the part of the provincial authorities; I am not the judge of that. But surely it is important when dealing with a man who at certain moments falls within the jurisdiction of provincial authorities and at other moments falls within the jurisdiction of the federal authorities, not to charge the federal authorities only with the whole of the responsibility because the person concerned happened to have entered Canada illegally and is faced with the application of the Immigration Act.

I should like to give an example of this, and it is a converse example. The administration of justice in the provinces rests with the attorneys general of the provinces. Very often an attorney general, because of a conviction entered in one case, causes the person who has been prosecuted by him and who is condemned to more than two years in prison to be sent a federal penitentiary. From the moment that person enters the federal penitentiary it is surely no more the responsibility of the attorney general of the province to see to it that this man be treated according to standards otherwise applicable while he is within the confines of the penitentiary. It is up to the federal commissioner of penitentiaries and to the latter's subordinate officer to see to it that the proper standards be applied; and I say that from that moment on nobody could say that there is an onus upon that attorney general of the province, he having carried out his duty as attorney general and sent that person to the penitentiary, to see to it that that person in the penitentiary be dealt with according to the provisions of the bill of rights, or otherwise. This does not deny any of the responsibilities which under the federal statutes lie with the appropriate minister of any federal department, including myself.
Both the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and myself have shown to what extent it is important that we must be satisfied in our own minds that we have been or will be discharging in the future our responsibilities in the most complete fashion. This has been proven, if you like, by the appointment of Mr. Sedgwick as counsel as early as last Friday, with the relatively broad terms of reference which were given to him. I mean by this that one must always be careful not to give the impression that all of the evils which might happen to a man must be blamed upon the department which, at one moment in that man's life, happened to have been dealing with him.
On the whole, Mr. Chairman, I must say, and I know the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration shares my view that we are all indebted to the hon. members in this house, because I know this is the only context in which these suggestions must be taken, for their co-operation in directing our attention to certain cases, which of course could not have been brought to the attention of the minister before or were not part of the minister's knowledge before. We should also like to thank them for making suggestions, which illustrates once more the importance 20220-292
Interim Supply
of this great institution, the House of Commons, which by the method of questions, remarks, comments or statements, makes for a better and always more human administration, both of justice and the statutes of this country.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the minister permit a question. I understand that the minister is recognizing another member who contributed to this debate, and although I should like to take part later in the debate I would like to ask a question now. Although it is true, as he says, that the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, in cases such as immigration cases where the prosecution is initiated by the department and in which they are responsible to that extent for bringing the immigrant to court, is there any reason the minister can suggest why the department should not take the responsibility of seeing that the immigrant is in fact properly instructed as to his rights, has access to counsel, and has knowledge of the case to be made against him?
Does not the minister think that the good name and reputation of Canada require that the federal department, which initiates these prosecutions of persons for illegal entry into Canada, should also take the responsibility to see the legal proceedings which ensue are such that they are a credit to Canada, rather than the sort of thing we have been hearing about in the last few weeks?


Guy Favreau: The remark just made by the hon. member corresponds to quite an exact degree with the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, when he said he thought this particular measure was one that deserved very serious and thorough consideration. The only reason I made the remark was because the very act which was charged against one particular officer, that is, the interpreter in the case concerned-which was a positive act- could surely not be controlled at that moment by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or by the Department of Justice. But I agree we will have to go into this very serious question, the question of the general instructions at the very inception of a case, both to counsel and otherwise.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Does the Minister of Justice think that, if the federal department of citizenship had provided counsel, any such problem would have arisen with interpreters?

Interim. Supply


Guy Favreau: I did not catch the latter part of the question.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Does this not point up the need for the federal government, through its Department of Citizenship and Immigration, to provide counsel to these citizens, or quasi citizens, so that problems with interpreters will not arise? Do the arguments the minister is using not point up the federal responsibility?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, that would be a strict matter of opinion. I do not think there is responsibility incumbent upon the government, if everybody concerned at all levels performed their duty in a full and complete fashion; but I can only repeat that human beings being what they are, they are susceptible to error, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was right in stating this afternoon that this was a matter to which he was bent on giving serious consideration.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, some time ago, I was surprised to learn that an important plant in the city of Joliette, that of the Consolidated Textile, which provides jobs to quite a few family heads, had decided to put aside its $3 million expansion project and transfer it to Alexandria, in the province of Ontario. That plant, which is already in operation in Joliette, was to add to its present establishment a weaving and dyeing plant which would have employed more than 200 persons.
The city of Joliette and the province of Quebec are losing this building project valued at $3 million, because the company would rather carry it out in an area designated as economically weak by the federal government, to benefit from tax incentives, that is, tax exemptions and benefits to be gained therefrom. That policy was announced by the federal government and particularly by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury).
In the Joliette area, there are already over
4,000	unemployed persons. As Joliette is not designated as a depressed area according to federal government standards, it follows that the province of Quebec and the city of Joliette are losing an important factory which employed more than 200 people.
I protest on behalf of the people of the county of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm who surely do not deserve such punishment from the government. The people of my constituency pay taxes just as the people of any other constituency in the country, and I be-

lieve that this decision of the government to designate certain areas in the country as depressed areas, where factories benefit from tax exemptions, is detrimental to the economy of the Joliette region.
Mr. Chairman, several members are surprised by the revolution which is smouldering at the present time in French Canada and more especially in the province of Quebec. I can tell you that I am surprised that such a revolution, or unrest, did not take place 40 or 50 years ago. One of the reasons why the province of Quebec is the setting for that unrest is certainly that, from the economic viewpoint, it lags behind all the others. Therefore, the Quebec people want to make up for lost time and they are trying to find a formula to improve their economy.
Let me point out that the standard of living of the Quebec citizen is 10 per cent lower than that of the average Canadian and 27 per cent lower than that of the Ontario citizen.
We barely control 5 per cent of the economic activity of Canada, while our ethnic group represents 29 per cent of the population. In the province of Quebec itself, our group forms about 82.6 per cent of the population, but only controls 10 per cent of the economic activity, while we hold only 20 per cent of the key positions.
Mr. Chairman, about 40 per cent of the unemployed in Canada live in Quebec and the average income per capita in 1963 amounted approximately to $1,700 while it reached $2,000 in Ontario and $2,600 in the United States. While France and Belgium experienced heavy losses during the last world war, the average income per capita was $1,750 and $1,850.
Mr. Chairman, I can go on. The average income of the Quebec farmer is less than $1,200 per year.
In view of this situation the people of Quebec are justified in being concerned and in getting agitated so as to stir public opinion.
As for the federal government, the province of Quebec does not get its fair share. As a matter of fact, it only has 11 per cent of the railways built in Canada, and the federal government has cancelled the proposed building of a railway in the Gaspe peninsula, which would surely have provided a means of restoring economy in that part of our province.
On the federal level, French speaking Canadians do not get their fair share within the federal civil service. French speaking Canadians must be bilingual, whereas the other

element in our country only has to know one language.
In the province of Quebec, the rights of the minorities are respected. As a matter of fact, the English speaking minority enjoys the same rights, in the field of education, as the French speaking majority, whereas in most of the other provinces, the French speaking minority does not share equal rights with the English speaking majority.
The province of Quebec has contributed greatly to our country's development. It never lagged behind and, during the last world war, Quebec gave more soldiers, more of its children, to the Canadian army, proportionately speaking, than the other provinces. It did its share not only in men but also in money for peace.
Moreover, it must be remembered that from 1942 to 1947, Ottawa received $2,258,381,000 from Quebec and gave it back only $103 million. That shows, therefore, that the province of Quebec also did its war effort. It sacrificed a large share of its rights to enable the federal government to get the necessary income for its war effort and the maintenance of peace.
Mr. Chairman, the St. Jean Baptiste societies recently held an important convention in the province of Quebec. They adopted rather strong, energetic and categorical resolutions concerning the future of our country. Now, they feel that the time has come not only to revise our constitution, but to call all the provinces to a conference in order to find a definite solution and to give recognition to the existence of two free nations, both of which would carry out their destiny while remaining closely associated. In other words, Mr. Chairman, they would be in favour of convening a federal-provincial conference in the future to consider the possibility of setting up two national states if the majority of the people from Quebec-


Maurice Lamontagne: And two parties.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Lamontagne) just made a remark which I did not hear. I would be very happy if he would repeat it.


Maurice Lamontagne: And two parties.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Perhaps the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean helped, by his centralizing theories, the change and the revolution which is going on in the province of Quebec. And everybody knows what the elite of that province thinks of his new brilliant formula, 20220-292J
Interim, Supply
co-operative federalism. People know what Mr. Rene Levesque and many citizens of the province of Quebec and even of the country think of it.


Maurice Lamontagne: Even the member for Three Rivers.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: And it is probably this lucky find on the part of the Secretary of State, which induced the federation of the St. Jean Baptiste societies to draw this conclusion that it would be preferable if there were two associate states in Canada instead of a single federal state.
Mr. Chairman, I am always surprised to hear the English speaking members in this house wonder about the province of Quebec. They should not be worried, and if there is presently a revolution in the province of Quebec, this definitely concerns the inhabitants of the province of Quebec. I do not say that the inhabitants of the other provinces should not have a look at what goes on in the province of Quebec, but if the inhabitants of the other provinces and my English speaking colleagues really want to work in the interests of confederation, they simply have to advise their provincial governments to follow the example set by the province of Quebec in its handling of the English speaking minority in that province.
A great uneasiness prevailing in Canada at the present time certainly comes from failure to recognize our rights in regard to language and religious teaching in the provinces other than the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, reference is made to national unity. People want a strong nation, but two bills are introduced in the house asking us to accept at the same time a maple leaf flag and the union jack.
Mr. Chairman, such a formula is not acceptable for the people of the province of Quebec, who want only one distinctive flag. On that flag, they want no symbol of the past, no fleur-de-lis, but they want a national distinctive flag, no matter if it has one or three maple leaves.
It is not that the province of Quebec does not hold the union jack or the red ensign in some veneration, but it will always object to the choice of a symbol other than a national distinctive flag.
Mr. Chairman, in two days, the French Canadians will celebrate their national day. Let me read an advertisement published in the newspaper Le Devoir this morning and paid for by Henry Morgan Company Limited, a large English store in the province of Quebec:

Interim Supply
-and finally, since the sun was married with the fleur-de-lis as a modem sign of the French renewal in Quebec, it is no longer permitted to doubt, not of our survival, but of our living which is already radiant, brilliant and intensive.
Let us think of the 1,200 immigrants of the early days of the colony who developed to the point that they make up a people of some 5 or 6 million French Canadians forming a young, dynamic and forward-looking nation. French Canada, a living reality.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion there are two nations in Canada, and I believe that French Canadians are numerous enough in this country to be considered a nation. This is what I believe, and I hope that the government will, as soon as possible, examine the important suggestions made by the St. Jean Baptiste society of the province of Quebec.
Canada should fully understand that we have to reach a compromise, to remake our Canadian constitution and, if necessary, in order to save Canada from annexation by the United States, recognize two associated states, which might have their own responsibilities and co-operate in the interest of this country's economy.


Mr. Lessard (Lake Si. John):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes.


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the hon. member rightly, he said that we, in Quebec, do not want to preserve any symbol of our past. Those are his exact words-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Excuse me-


H.-Pit Lessard: Would you agree to the French language-which is also a symbol of our past-being completely abandoned, and a new language being spoken in the province of Quebec?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Lake St. John understood me. First of all, the French language is certainly not a symbol. When I was speaking of symbols, I meant flags. I said that the majority, at least 99 per cent of the people in the province of Quebec want a distinctive flag without any trace of the past. That is what they want, and that is what I said.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the subject of immigration. I regard it as one of very great importance because, although this is not always recognized, the good name and reputation of Canada through-
[Mr. Pigeon.)
out the world hinges to some extent upon the way that we in Canada through our immigration department treat those who come from all parts of the world. We know that they come to Canada from every part of the world at the present time. Very often they return to those countries, and the ideas they get of the administration of Canadian justice, the fairness of our laws, the consideration, kindness and understanding of the officials that they meet, are the hallmarks by which they judge Canada as a whole. Therefore, I make no apology for returning to this subject although I hope not to repeat what has been said earlier in the debate or to repeat some of the matters I have discussed on other occasions.
First of all, I should like to say at once that so far as I am concerned I do not propose to take part in any attack upon the minister or upon the staff which advises him. It is natural, as has been said, that in his department he should be subjected to a great deal of criticism. Personally, I have found both this minister and other ministers considerate, careful and conscientious about the individual cases that are drawn to their attention. I have absolutely no complaint whatever to make about the individual approach of the minister to these problems.
Having said that, I want to say at once that basically in the administration of our immigration, the system is rotten. I use the words "rotten system"-they may be strong words- advisedly and carefully. I must confess my disappointment that the minister, in making the announcement he has made, was not able to tell this house that certain positive steps were going to be taken. I appreciate the fact that the advice of an eminent lawyer such as Mr. Sedgwick will be helpful to the department. Knowing Mr. Sedgwick, and knowing the department, I hope that out of that advice will come certain worth-while things. However, no advice from a lawyer is going to substitute for the department itself deciding to go to the very root of the problem of immigration by deciding whether or not the would-be immigrant is, in fact, to have what parliament itself has said is required, namely a fair hearing under the act. I have said the system is a rotten system because the basic right to know the case that is made against you, the basic right to be able to defend yourself against hidden aspersions, is denied in practice.
The Immigration Act provides, as the minister well knows, a series of sections that entitle the would-be immigrant to a hearing.

My friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, has spoken about the need for having counsel. I have been counsel in hundreds of these cases. I tell the minister and I tell anybody who wants to listen, that the right to counsel itself is meaningless unless counsel, by some system that can be evolved can find out what is the basis of the objection to the admission of the person in question or, alternatively, why they are now being put out of the country. As long as we have what I can only describe as "phony" reasons such as, "You have not got a visa" or "You have not got a medical certificate", then an individual will not have a fair hearing. The department says: We will not tell you why; those are the reasons.
I do not know if the minister has at his fingertips how many immigration cases have been disposed of out of those 30 a week, on the grounds that "You do not have a visa" or "You do not have a medical certificate". I suspect the very large percentage of cases are being disposed of on these grounds. I say to the minister and to the house, therefore, that those grounds are virtually meaningless, because if you then inquire why the the person has not got a visa, why they refuse him a visa, they will not tell you. There may be some sort of police record that has been secured from the country of origin. There may be some health condition about which you do not know, which has been revealed on a medical examination. There may be innumerable reasons, good, bad or indifferent. However, behind this screen of reasons that are not given, any sort of discriminatory reason that an individual officer may have could operate to keep a would-be immigrant out of the country.
Does the minister feel any sense of justice0 Could I feel any sense of justice if I wanted to bring my brother to this country from Italy or wherever he may be when I am told he cannot come because he does not have a visa? Why has he not got a visa? The department says, "We will not let you".
I do not know what the reason is, but they do not tell you the real reason for not admitting a person. I say, therefore, that until the immigration department or Mr. Sedgwick, or anybody else, make up their minds to the fact that those who apply for admission to this country or who wish to bring their relatives into this country are entitled to a sort of basic hearing, the situation will not be rectified. I am not asking for a legal hearing where the evidence is disclosed in detail, but only for the basic elements of a fair hear-
22, 1964	4591
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ing. So long as these elements are not conceded, then the minister will continue to be subjected to all sorts of criticisms, because the basic, elementary rule of justice does not apply to these would-be immigrants.
The reason I say it should be applied-I know there are difficulties-is that it would first of all enable the immigrant and his family to recognize that they have had justice. In addition, it would enable them, in many cases, to dispose of the objections that have been made. I have been fortunate enough in some cases in which I represented an immigrant to be told by the minister the reason for the objection, after all the proceedings were over. The minister has been good enough to say, "Well, this is the reason". Then, I have had a chance to look into the reason and find out that the reason was not of great substance. I have been able to persuade the minister to change his mind. This is fine; but this course is not available to the average person. This right to meet the objection is not available except in cases where the person is able to get a member of parliament or a qualified lawyer to take up his case.
It looks as though it were ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman. I have a few observations to make and I would prefer to make them tomorrow, -if it is ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask the house leader if we continue with interim supply tomorrow?


Guy Favreau: In answer to the question by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I must say that tomorrow we will try to complete the debate on interim supply, and as soon as that debate is completed we will resume the debate on the flag resolution.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Subject matter of questions debated under adjournment motion).
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, on November 28, 1963, we find that on page 5199 of Hansard the Secretary of

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is reported as saying this during a debate on external affairs:
The nurturing of one of our cornerstones of foreign policy, the commonwealth, is a basic feature of our external policies. In the past few years membership has been progressively enlarged until today it embraces 16 sovereign states. The majority now are in Asia and in Africa. It is because of the special insight which the commonwealth gives us into the new forces which have emerged in the post-war era that we most value this unique association of states. The commonwealth practice of continuing consultation among members on matters of mutual concern is especially valuable in a world in which race and colour have too often tended to be divisive forces.
We can well imagine the minister making that statement with the organ-like clarity of voice which prompted one Texan visitor in the galleries on one occasion to go out and ask a member of the protective staff: "What is the name of that cathedral?"
In any event, I was horrified, on Friday, to pick up a copy of the Ottawa Citizen and see on the front page an article entitled "Commonwealth slipping-Heeney". It was written by Charles King and it went as follows:
London-Canada's former ambassador in Washington today rejected the commonwealth as a "meaningful'' political reality.
He argued: "Whatever the future of the commonwealth, it can no longer be centred on London, nor, for the great majority of its members, clustered round the monarchy.
Just two weeks before commonwealth prime ministers gather in London for an important conference, Arnold Heeney delivered his blockbuster to a British audience assembled by the Ditchley foundation, which calls itself "an active educational centre for British-Amerlcan understanding."
Then the chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission had this to say-and it is in quotes:
It seems to me unprofitable.. .to place undue emphasis nowadays on friendship and special relationship within the commonwealth. The winds of change.. .have laid bare the dry and brittle roots of much cherished doctrine.
It is obvious enough that the commonwealth cannot recover nor achieve any meaningful degree of political cohesion. Nor does it seem likely that our economic relations will become much closer.
Now, in view of the minister's announcement of this government's policy with respect to the commonwealth, and after reading this article by such an important civil servant-a man who, I am informed, has never been known to express a single opinion on anything outside the minister's office previously, except on the weather-I was moved to ask the hon. gentleman this question: "Would the minister inform the house if that statement

is a reflection of government policy and, if not, what right has this servant of the public to be making statements in contradiction of government policy?"
This matter was also brought to my attention by a number of other people who were certainly shocked at this statement by Mr. Arnold Heeney as reported from London, in contradiction to the attitude taken by this government toward the commonwealth. I am sure all of us here take strong exception to Mr. Heeney's opinion with respect to the present and future value of the commonwealth of nations of which we are a member.
I do not know how much more time I have. I have a number of authorities here, but I shall not have a chance to quote them. However, I have brought one particularly interesting authority with me and I should like to read briefly from page 12 of Lecture Series No. 2. This is from a lecture delivered at the University of British Columbia:
The official does not make decisions. His responsibilities fall into two categories. First, it is his duty to inform and advise the political authority- usually the minister of his department. In the words of A.D.P. Heeney, himself one of the most distinguished of Canadian civil servants: "Decision is the prerogative of the minister."
Now I am quoting Mr. Heeney against Mr. Heeney. He goes on to say:
But the expert must stick to his last. He must appreciate the limitations of his office. He must appreciate the limitations of his own expert knowledge. He has neither the experience nor the special kind of wisdom-let alone the authority-to govern.
The second duty of the civil servant is to carry out the tasks imposed by the policy of the government, that is, to administer the law. President Cleveland summarized it in the single sentence: "Public officers are the servants and agents of the people, to execute the laws which the people have made."
I have drawn this matter to the attention of the house. I see my time has practically expired. I look forward to an explanation from the Secretary of State for External Affairs in answer to the questions I have raised.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman referred a few moments ago to the most recent statement in this house of government policy with regard to the commonwealth. From that statement it is clear, of course, that there is the fullest appreciation by the government, as there is by this house, of the importance of the commonwealth; and this will be highlighted at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference next month. While there have been changes

in the commonwealth, these changes do not in any way detract from the essential quality that makes it a valuable institution in this day of interdependence. There can be no doubt, then-as we are basically all agreed in this house and, as I think we are in most parts of this country-that the commonwealth is a vital institution.
I have not found in the statement of Mr. Heeney, which I have before me, anything warranting the conclusion that he does not share this opinion of the commonwealth's importance, although he does note that there are revolutionary processes with which all of us might not agree.
It was only late this morning that I first received the complete text of the Ditchley foundation lecture which Mr. Heeney delivered on June 19. The text is 45 pages long, and I hope that the hon. gentleman will take the opportunity of reading every word of it so that any isolated parts can be related to the main thesis. Upon publication of an article in the Daily Express of June 20 Mr. Heeney sent the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a telegram in which he described the Daily Express article as "distorted and misleading
22, 1964	4593
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and false in the impression it conveys". Among other things, that report describes Mr. Heeney as a former Canadian ambassador to London, which of course is incorrect on two grounds. In London we have a high commissioner, not an ambassador; and Mr. Heeney has never held that post. Mr. Heeney, in defence of his own position, calls the report "a distortion of what I had to say in a lecture of some 45 minutes from a carefully prepared text on the subject 'Friends and relations: A Canadian perspective on Anglo-American affairs' ". Mr. Heeney's telegram also says, "You are fully aware of my attachment to the commonwealth, and in fact this emerges from the text itself." I note that at page 12 of the text Mr. Heeney says:
So. we Canadians assert a very special relationship with you in Britain, one hallowed by blood and treasured at every stage of our development from colony to nation, embracing within its friendly circle many principal elements in our national life, crowned by the monarchy itself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. minister, but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.11 p.m.



Tuesday, June 23, 19S4