1966-06-03

REDISTRIBUTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to sections 19 and 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, statutes of Canada, 13 Elizabeth II, chapter 31, 1964-65, to lay before the house a certified copy of the reports of the electoral boundaries commissions for the following provinces returned to me this day by the representation commissioner, as follows:
1.	Alberta, without amendment.
2.	British Columbia and amendments thereto.
3.	Manitoba and amendments thereto in the form of resolutions of that province's commission.
4.	New Brunswick, without amendment.
5.	Nova Scotia, without amendment.
6.	Ontario, and amendments thereto.
7.	Prince Edward Island, without amendment.
8.	Quebec, and amendments thereto; and
9.	Saskatchewan, without amendment.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West) presented the fifth report of the standing committee on transport and communications, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour will no doubt have received a report in this regard, but I should like to ask him now what is the present position regarding 23033-375
the strike, which more and more is bringing about disastrous stagnation.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that it will not be news to most members of the house that the mediator, Judge Lippe, had a difficult day yesterday. Nevertheless I think he performed a useful service in keeping the parties together working toward a settlement.
Late yesterday Judge Lippe announced his recommendation to both sides regarding a commission of inquiry which he felt should be set up. That suggestion was to be given consideration overnight. I may say that following the meeting with the mediator the longshoremen suggested that a meeting with the stevedoring companies should be held. A telegram was sent to the Prime Minister last night on this subject, and at the request of the Prime Minister I replied to it early this morning. In view of the publicity that has been given to this matter it might be wise, with the permission of the house, to read into the record the telegram of reply.
It is addressed to Mr. Paul Asselin and Mr. Gerard Tremblay, one of whom is the president of the largest longshoremen's union in Quebec, the Montreal union, and the other is international vice president. The telegram reads as follows:
The Prime Minister has received your telegram of June 2 and has asked me to reply. I would first say that any suggestion for the early settlement of the strike of longshoremen at St. Lawrence ports is greatly welcomed here. With respect to your suggestion that the shipping federation be displaced as the bargaining representative for the employers they represent you will recall that in the various certificates granted to your organization by the wartime and Canada labour relations boards the shipping federation was named as the representative of the various employers affected. It is not in my power to displace either the federation or your organization as the representative agencies of the employers or the employees affected by the dispute. I would hope that both parties resume collective bargaining to restore the good relations that existed for many years in the past.
I would supplement this information by saying that the wire has gone out and my deputy minister is still in Montreal with Judge Lippe, working on this matter as one of greatest urgency.

June 3, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could the minister also read into the record the telegram that was sent to the Prime Minister, so we will have the full record; and will he say whether the displacement of the shipping federation is a condition precedent, in so far as the stevedores' organization is concerned, to a settlement?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have no objection, if the house is willing, to reading into the record the wire that was received by the Prime Minister. I might say that there are some points in it that are open to argument. Perhaps that is not surprising in disputes of this nature; you get them from one side or the other. The wire to the Prime Minister reads as follows:
Must regretfully advise you that the International Longshoremen's Association now finds it evident that it cannot settle its dispute with the customers of its employers. The employers of the longshoremen at Montreal, Quebec and Three Rivers are the undernoted stevedoring companies duly incorporated in Canada and owned and operated by Canadians. The International Longshoremen's Association have by circumstance been placed in the position of dealing with the Shipping Federation of Canada the members of which are not our employers but are in fact foreign steamship companies for the most part located in Great Britain.
That is not strictly accurate, because there are some Canadian companies in this federation as well.


John George Diefenbaker: Is that statement part of the wire?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, I interjected that.
Continuing:
It is obvious that the capricious attitude of the Shipping Federation of Canada and our members are convinced that if the shipping federation remains in command of the negotiations relevant to a proposed collective agreement between our organization its members and various Canadian stevedore companies the said collective agreement will be blocked by its present impasse until such times as the dispute in Great Britain with the British sailors is settled.
Respectfully petition the labour minister to direct that the negotiations be conducted between the International Longshoremen's Association and the employers of its members, which are namely the following Canadian stevedore companies: Brown and Ryan, Eastern Canada, Wolfe Stevedores, Cullen Stevedores, Montreal, and Saint John Stevedores, etc. etc. It is our earnest belief that action by the hon. minister upon this justified petition will result in a settlement of this dispute within a relatively short period.
Paul Asselin,
Gerard Tremblay
On behalf of the elected International Longshoremen's Association negotiating committee.


John George Diefenbaker: That telegram certainly does not give much indication of hopefulness. Under the circumstances does the government intend to regard the national welfare as of some importance-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -and take action along the line that was taken some years ago by the St. Laurent government?


Mr. Winkler:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: I wait for the answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Grafftey:: You are the government; govern. You wanted power. Now you have it, use it.


John George Diefenbaker: May I at least have the courtesy of the minister saying yes or no?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I gave the right hon. gentleman the answer yesterday. I said this matter is receiving careful and urgent consideration by the government, and if the hon. gentleman has any suggestions to make they would be welcomed.


Mr. Pearson:: He has not.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government if it has now abrogated its responsibility to the opposition?


Mr. Pickersgill:: A constructive suggestion.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the minister whether he is now willing to follow not only the suggestion but the example set by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) when he was Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask him whether there has been any communication between the government and Premier Lesage or members of the Quebec government relating to the strike at Montreal.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice. I can speak on behalf of my own department but the hon. member is asking about communications with the government.
[Mr. Nicholson.)
June 3, 1966


William Heward Grafftey: Then I should like to ask the minister whether there has been any contact between him or his officials and Premier Lesage or members of the Quebec government regarding the strike at Montreal.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Not by my department, so far as I know. This matter is a federal responsibility, Mr. Speaker.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the minister answer my question? This is a federal responsibility, but has there been any communication?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my understanding the minister did reply to the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there have been reports and complaints of continuing harassment and interference with trucks which are engaged in lawful and essential business at the Montreal docks, and an injunction in respect thereto has been taken out. What means are being taken to prevent this grave injustice to rights, which in particular is having an adverse effect on the availability of feed to the farmers of Quebec?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that question will have to be answered either by my colleague the Minister of Transport or by the Solicitor General, but I should think by the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, just before coming into the house I spoke to the chairman of the harbours board. The injunction is being respected this morning; there are only three pickets at the gates of the harbours board. Trucks are moving in and out and grain is being taken from the elevators. That is the report I received at eleven o'clock.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would he inform the house whether the government has received any protest from the Soviet union against alleged anti-Soviet propaganda in Canada, and what reply the government has given or is preparing to counter such allegations.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which my hon. friend refers was the subject of representations made to a member of our embassy in Moscow at the Soviet foreign ministry on June 1. The Soviet embassy here and Soviet officials in Moscow have recently made known to us informally their concern at what they refer to as an anti-Soviet campaign in the Canadian press, citing what they consider to be evidence from press reports to support their concern. We have explained that such reporting is a normal function of the press in a free society, and that what the press prints is in no way controlled by the government. We have assured them that it remains a sincere desire of the Canadian government to encourage the development of mutually beneficial relations between Canada and the Soviet union.
In this connection I think I can say with your concurrence, Mr. Speaker, that not only the government but all of us in this house are greatly looking forward to the forthcoming visit to Canada of Soviet parliamentarians led by the first deputy premier, Dimitri Polyansky, and to their subsequent tour of the grain growing areas in western Canada. I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, of any so-called provocations directed against the Soviet embassy nor of any activity which might impede its normal functions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I wish to direct to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary. In the light of the information provided by the Prime Minister can the parliamentary secretary inform the house if arrangements for the visit of Soviet northern experts to Canada have been completed?
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and
National Resources): Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that it has just been announced that President

June 3, 19G6
Inquiries of the Ministry Makarios has sealed off the Turkish sector of Cyprus and has forbidden Turkish Cypriots to leave their area, can the Prime Minister tell us whether supplies are getting through and what the Canadian government is doing in regard to such action?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that matter at once. I do not have any information regarding this matter before me at the moment.


Robert Norman Thompson: I will direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell me whether this action is affecting the service of the United Nations troops the largest part of which is made up of Canadians?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I cannot say, Mr. Speaker. I have asked for a report, but I cannot give my hon. friend an answer at this moment.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister now in a position to reply to the question I asked two days ago, which he took as notice?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am able to confirm what I said to the house that there are no instances of shipments of powdered milk for the schools and missions in Southern Rhodesia being held up.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Siralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform us whether he has recently been in touch with Commissioner Spence, and whether the commissioner's report will soon be presented?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had no meeting with the commissioner, and I do not know when his report will be in.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the Minister of Health and Welfare. In his absence may I direct it to his seatmate. Will the federal government review any representations received from the provincial governments relating to the inclusion of mental illness under the medicare program, in the light of the revelations regarding the overcrowding of mental institutions? Will the minister take such representations into consideration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a matter of general policy, and I suggest to the hon. member that the question might be placed on the order paper.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, an answer to which is considered urgent by the citizens of New Westminster. I should like to ask the minister if he has yet had an opportunity of studying the report of Philipps, Barratt and Associates relative to the Fraser river bridge at New Westminster, and whether as a result there will be a recommendation for either a bridge replacement or a span replacement.


Mr. Speaker:: In spite of the preface to the hon. member's question I believe it is not so urgent that it should be asked at this time.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if the reported threat of a work stoppage by communications personnel in the meteorological service has been averted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would prefer not to make a categorical answer to that question. The matter is under most urgent consideration. I think perhaps while it is under consideration it might not be very helpful for me to try to interpret what is going on.
June 3, 1966



SEAWAY TOLLS-REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF REPORT OF CONSULTANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if he has any information as to when the seaway authority will have the economic report available for distribution and sale.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think just as soon as it can be reproduced. I believe there are 350 pages in three volumes. They are not printed but are done by one of these processes such as mimeographing or something of that sort. As a result of the rather over-full employment in that particular field of activity in Ottawa at the moment it is difficult to get these documents produced as rapidly as we would like. [Translation]



NATIONAL SECURITY QUEBEC-STATEMENT RESPECTING PROVINCIAL POLICE ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
Can he tell the house whether he is aware the R.C.M.P. file seems to indicate that the only thing for which Mr. Vachon can be reproached is his demand for more French in the R.C.A.F.?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order.


Maurice Allard: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
This is a matter which concerns all French Canadian members of the house. On
the basis of that file, Mr. Lesage was able to state that to ask for more French is to become a security risk, so that my question deserves an immediate answer.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will examine the standing orders, he will realize that he cannot demand an immediate answer.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but in his absence I should like to direct it to his parliamentary secretary. My question is a follow-up of one put by the hon. member for Saskatoon last Wednesday. The urgency of
Inquiries of the Ministry the question is expressed by the deep concern of some 800 Indians in my riding.
Can the minister say what decision has been made regarding the removal of the important Indian shrine Mistaseni to safe ground, now that the historic sites and monuments board have met and presented recommendations to the minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The last time x objected to a question about this Indian national shrine I got into difficulty. However, it seems to me this is the same type of question as the last one and I should not accept it unless there is evidence of urgency which is not apparent to me at the moment.


Richard Russell Southam: The hon. member for Saskatoon directed this question to the minister last Wednesday, when the minister was absent, and his parliamentary secretary accepted the question as notice. I was just expressing my concern on behalf of our area.


Mr. Speaker:: I am just wondering if an answer was given to the question at the time. If it was only taken as notice, the parliamentary secretary will want to give an answer.



ONTARIO-IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his capacity as Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. In his absence perhaps his parliamentary secretary may wish to take the question as notice. The question deals with the community development agreement signed with the province of Ontario on May 19, and it is this. Will the minister assure the house that the provincial community development officials will not visit any band or reserve without the prior permission of the band concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be placed on the order paper.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has met or will be meeting the parties to the dispute with Air Canada who, I understand, will be taking a strike vote Tuesday. If he

June 3, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry has met with them, can he report on this meeting?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have not met with them, but as I said yesterday an official of my department met with them in Toronto yesterday. Consideration is being given to the appointment of a mediator, if it is deemed advisable or necessary. The official of the department was there in the capacity of my representative, not as a mediator.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister not think, under the circumstances, a mediator is advisable?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am inclined to think so. PUBLIC SERVICE



FORMATION OF UNION OF FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. My question is related to further evidence of the continuing march toward a classless socialist society.
In view of the recent announcement that the professional association of foreign service officers intends to form a union for the purpose of bargaining with the government of Canada, would the Prime Minister inform the house if this union was certified as a collective bargaining agent? Would its officers and members be entitled to picket the nearly 100 Canadian embassies and consulates around the world, and the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I noticed this report with great interest, and I am looking at it especially to see whether ex-foreign service officers are eligible for membership.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer of the Prime Minister to my previous question I should like to address a question to the house leader. In view of the fact that ambassadors are now being unionized, would there be any objection on the part of the government to the secretaries of parliament forming an association for the same purpose, namely collective bargaining?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I may have been a little too lenient when I allowed the first question; I certainly will not allow the second one.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which the Minister of Transport may wish to take as notice. I thank him for the answer which he gave yesterday about a pilot for the Alexandr Pushkin. However, allegations are being made that other vessels were given pilots and that this vessel was being discriminated against. Will the minister investigate this matter and advise me in due course?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to take the question as notice. I think the answer is that there was no discrimination as far as the pilotage authority is concerned. Whether there was discrimination on the part of the pickets who prevented the pilot from going aboard I would not be able to say. Neither would any other member of the government, because this question would not be within our responsibility. But so far as the pilotage authority is concerned there was no discrimination. There was an unfortunate incident, as I explained yesterday, which made it impossible for the pilot to get aboard the vessel.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does the government intend to include all Canadians born prior to 1910 in the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this question should be placed on the order paper.



EXPROPRIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the sweeping reforms in their expropriation laws announced yesterday by the Ontario government, can the minister inform us whether or not a redrafting of the expropriation laws of Canada is included in the present statute revisions which are under way?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minisier of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker.
June 3, 1966

Supply-Industry



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he can tell the house how his study on the report on juvenile delinquency is proceeding, and if he can announce any timetable with respect to legislation founded upon it.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave approximately one week ago, at which time I stated that an interdepartmental committee had been set up. I would hesitate to indicate deadlines, as I have sometimes found there are administrative difficulties.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport dealing with the Canadian Pacific Railway's "Dominion" hearings. Will the minister tell the house whether all documentation has now arrived, and whether all those who are appealing against the judgment of the Board of Transport Commissioners have now filed their appeals?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can give a categorical answer, but I can say that the most recent document filed was one received from the government of Manitoba on May 26, which is now under study. Until all these documents have been studied it will, of course, not be appropriate for the government to hold any hearings.

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



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $6,795,400.
The Chairman:: This item appears on page 178 of the blue book and was last under consideration on Thursday, June 2.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I will keep the committee for only a very short minute or two. In following the discussion which took place yesterday about the designated areas I was reminded of an exchange that took place in this house on June 30, 1965, to be found at page 3126 of Hansard for that year. I rise merely to ask the minister whether he would not consider implementing what I think was an undertaking by him at that time.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam had asked the minister whether he would consider not only tabling the orders in council but also referring them to the committee on industry, research and energy development, as I believe it was then called. The minister said at page 3126 of Hansard:
I did undertake unequivocally to table the estimates because this is within my control. I have learned in a very short parliamentary experience not to give undertakings as to what the house may or may not do. I will use my best endeavours to see that these are referred as early as possible after tabling-and I do undertake to table them immediately-to the house committee. Specifically, I think it has been understood, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this question of tabling and referral, that the government undertakes that the order in council designating the designated areas in clause 2(c) will be tabled on the resumption after the summer recess-
If I might interrupt my reading at this point, they seem to have been tabled on Friday, January 28 of this year, according to the sessional papers I have before me. The minister went on to say:
-and referred to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development. This will include an opportunity to discuss the criteria.
It seems to me in so far as it was possible for the minister to give any undertaking, he did so in that statement in reply to the question of my hon. colleague the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The minister said that it was understood that the government undertook not only that the orders in council would be tabled but that they would be referred to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development.
It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the question of the designated areas, all that is involved in the way in which they are designated and which areas are designated, is crucial. There is a desire on the part of my colleagues who have taken an active and interested part in these discussions to go into the matter more deeply. I am sure that desire is shared by all members of the house I

June 3, 1966
Supply-Industry
therefore ask the minister whether he would not today repeat the undertaking which he gave on June 30, 1965, and this time carry out that undertaking.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, an undertaking such as the hon. member referred to was given and was valid and binding in respect of the parliament in which it was given. We are now in a new parliament.
I have discovered that the standing committee referred to now has a fairly full schedule of work. If it is the view of the steering committee of that committee that this work can be handled, I should be glad to have a discussion of this topic within the committee in the present session. I should be glad to have discussion of the designated areas program and the criteria therefor. But I would not want to hold up passage of the Department of Industry estimates until such time as this committee will have been able to complete its present schedule of work, before getting to the particular topic in question.
I repeat, in this new parliament I would be prepared to give a new undertaking to refer the question of the designated area program and the criteria therefor to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development if, in the view of the steering committee, there will be time to do this.


David Lewis: Let me make absolutely clear that there is no suggestion of holding up passage of the estimates. Second, could not the minister simply refer this question to the committee so the committee will ultimately deal with it? When the matter would be dealt with is up to the steering committee. I do not understand why the minister has to say that he will refer this matter to the committee after the steering committee has done something. Why cannot the minister simply refer this matter to that committee and leave it to the committee as to when it will deal with it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I understand that the house is free to refer what it wishes to the committee. It did not seem to me that much useful purpose would be served by referring this to the committee if the committee was not prepared to take it on. I wanted to ascertain in advance what could be done. I did not think any useful purpose would be served by referring this item to the committee if the committee had neither the interest nor the time to take it on.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I happen to be on the steering committee and I am aware of the work the committee has to do. I do not

think the minister is relieved of the commitment he made previously. I am perfectly prepared to admit that one parliament cannot bind another; nevertheless, the minister has not changed, and therefore he ought to be bound by whatever commitment he has made.
There may not be an opportunity to discuss this question in committee, but it has not been suggested that we should hold up the estimates on this account. May I, in connection with what has been said, direct a question to you, Mr. Chairman. Is it possible for us to take a commitment by the minister and refer that to the committee? I should like your advice, Mr. Chairman, as to whether, under a statutory section, we could refer the estimates to a committee. I think we should have some advice from you, Mr. Chairman, as to how this could be accomplished.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I have asked for a specific ruling by the officers at the table as to whether a commitment by the minister can be referred to a committee; and second, whether a statutory item that appears in the estimates can be referred to the committee by a motion in committee of supply.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think it is inappropriate to ask your opinion or for your ruling on legal matters. What is being sought here is a legal opinion. The hon. member for Timiskaming in fact is suggesting that approval of the Department of Industry estimates be suspended or withheld until the committee has dealt with the matter he has raised. That, I suggest, is the nature of the ruling he is seeking.
I have undertaken that if the steering committee wishes, and has the time to deal with this particular topic, namely the designated areas program and the criteria therefor, I will do what I am supposed to do to have that matter referred to this committee. That does not call for a ruling by the chairman as to the ability of the house to deal with statutory items.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Mr. McIntosh:: It is not often that I agree with the hon. member for York South, but on this occasion I do agree with him. Because there has been so much dissatisfaction expressed by hon. members about the minister's designated areas policy, if he will not consider discontinuing the policy, the suggestion that item 1 of the estimates stand and
June 3, 1966

the rest of the estimates be proceeded with might be considered. If the minister will not discontinue the policy then surely, in view of the number of protests that have been made, he must give consideration to changing it. It has been pointed out to him that the criteria he uses are wrong, and that in several cases, the criteria he says the department is using are not being used in the manner he suggests.
This whole policy does not accord with the principles he has set for his department. In fact it has been pointed out to him that it should not be administered by his department at all because it is a problem for the Department of Labour or the proposed department of manpower.
The minister is not helping industry in any manner by continuing this policy of designated areas. He is hindering the progress and affecting the economy of the country. The program is detrimental to the future of industry. It is creating municipal problems that never existed previously, and industrial problems which industry had never faced previously.
The minister has made an accusation that possibly there is filibustering on the part of the opposition. This is not filibustering. It has been pointed out previously that it is the duty of the opposition to criticize bad legislation. After hearing all the speeches about designated areas surely the minister must realize that this is a bad policy, but he has given no indication whatsoever that he will waver or bend just a little bit. He has not said he will take the legislation and reconsider it. He has not set a limit on how long he is going to carry out this policy.
This policy is bad for a number of reasons. It is bad for industry. It is not helping industry even though the minister tries to indicate that it is. Surely the minister is not so blind that he cannot bend just a little bit and give some consideration to the speeches made not only by the opposition but by his own backbenchers. In fact I heard only one speech from the government side supporting the minister's policy, and I heard many speakers on the government backbenches saying it is a bad policy. Surely those people have some influence on the minister, and I suggest we stand this item until we dispose of the rest of the estimates.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman who has just spoken feels quite strongly that the legislation establishing the area 23033-376
Supply-Industry
development agency is bad legislation, but in fact it is legislation enacted by the parliament of Canada. He feels that the designated area program should be abandoned completely. I venture to suggest that this represents the view of a very small minority in the chamber, perhaps a minority of one, and does not represent the general views of Canadians. Indeed, the hon. member for Timiskaming, far from wishing to see the policy abandoned, wants it extended. He appreciates that this is a useful initiative, and because it is working well in particular areas in particular respects he would like to take this useful, productive mechanism and extend its success to other areas.


John (Jack) McIntosh: May I ask the minister a
question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Just one moment, please. There seems to be some misconception as to how the program operates. There seem to be differences of view as to whether it should be extended, and as to the areas in which it should be extended. I have undertaken, if the committee on industry, research and energy development is prepared to deal with it, to refer the subject matter of the designated area program to that committee for study and presumably report.
What the hon. gentleman is now suggesting is that we pass on to the other items and come back to item 1 later and approve it, provided the minister has accepted the views of the hon. gentleman. I am prepared to listen to ideas, but not to accept the suggestion made by one hon. member that this policy be withdrawn and that until such time as it is withdrawn there will be no passage of the estimates.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the minister has just said I am just wondering how far the hon. member for Timiskaming wants this designated area program expanded. If the minister thinks we are going to get down on our hands and knees and crawl to him, asking him to include each of our own areas and in that way get rid of the opposition, he has another think coming. I would also say it should be extended, but I would go further than my own community. I would say it should be extended to the whole of Canada. Then it would not be discriminatory as it is at present.
The minister says I am a minority of one. Surely the minister, if he did not listen, must have looked over the speeches of members on this side of the house. There were very few

June 3, 1966
Supply-Industry
who complimented him on this type of policy. Certainly those who benefit from the legislation are in favour of it, but I say that in designating these areas the minister has not used the same criteria in all cases. I know certain representations have been made to the minister. I know he has changed his mind and designated certain areas, but I refuse to beg him to designate my area. That is what the minister wants.
I say that if the minister were not so arrogant and did not have the mind of a civil servant he would realize what is happening in this chamber today, namely that the people are speaking. Canada dislikes this policy that has been put forward by the minister. There are many areas in Canada that do not like it. Because pressure has been put on the minister by certain industrial urban centres he says they like it, but there are many rural areas in this country, and the people in them also have to make a living. Because of this policy, as has been pointed out to the minister on many previous occasions, the standard of living in those areas is dropping.
Family income is going down because of this very policy for which the minister is seeking support. This is what we are fighting against. It is to this that we want him to give consideration. I say stop this discrimination or extend the policy to cover all of Canada. I do not care which the minister does.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I almost rose on a point of order on something said by the minister a few minutes ago. He said it was the opinion held by a minority of one in this chamber that the present policy pursued by his department regarding these designated areas was a poor policy. I would like to refute that.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I was misunderstood. I did not say that the policy was universally approved either by members of the committee or by Canada. What I did say is that a very small minority would like to see the policy abandoned, and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek wanted it completely withdrawn. Now, there are a number of people who would like to see it changed-


John (Jack) McIntosh: How does it help industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -and I receive continuous representations regarding change. One further means of exploring suggested changes is consideration of the program by a committee. I

am delighted to agree to this, and have already agreed to it.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)
I am not saying the policy is perfect; I know it is not. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek suggested that it is a discriminatory policy and that one should remove the discrimination by extending it to all Canada. This is an incentive program. By definition an incentive program must be discriminatory. It must appeal to a limited segment and not to universality if it is going to be an incentive. The object of the program is to provide assistance in the way of incentives to those areas suffering from high chronic unemployment, and the whole of Canada does not suffer from high chronic unemployment. If, as the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek suggests, the criteria are not being applied properly, I would be delighted to learn where they are not being applied properly. I think they are. Perhaps in the committee examples of where they are not being applied properly can be adduced and a detailed answer given. I myself believe they are being properly and objectively applied.
It does not rest with the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, as he puts it, to come on his knees to me to get his area designated. I do not do the designation. As I pointed out last night the designation is quite automatic; it is determined by local events. When the chronic unemployment in a national employment service area, as measured by national employment registrations or by the average non-farm family income, rises in the case of registrations above a certain level or goes below, in terms of average family income, a certain point, that area qualifies itself quite independently of any views I may have on the subject. As I say, the qualification for designation is determined by local events and not at the discretion of the minister or the department. There is no discretion. When the local situation falls within the framework laid down by the act and the order in council designation takes place, and not at the discretion of either myself or the officials. So not only can the member spare his knees so far as I am concerned, but I can say further that it would not do him any good if he did come to me on bended knees. It would be a wasted pilgrimage.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his attempt to explain his version of the feelings on this side of the house but his explanation is unsatisfactory so far as
June 3, 1966

I am concerned, so far as my riding is concerned and so far as a vast area of southern Ontario with which I am familiar is concerned. I support the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek in his contention that this legislation is discriminatory and is bad for Canada as a whole. It even reflects on the motives of this government, when one goes back and analyses the primary reason for bringing in such legislation. On May 17 I protested against it because representations had been made to me from both the counties I represent, the county of Prince Edward and the county of Lennox, where the people are completely frustrated. They cannot get any new industry because of the attractive propositions put forward by the government to induce the location of industry in neighbouring areas which are designated.
My area, like that of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, is not designated. May I also say to the minister that I do not believe the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is coming on his knees to anyone in an effort to have his area designated. I think that applies to my people too. We do not come on our knees imploring assistance from the minister, who has designated other areas near us, but we do ask for fair play all across the board regarding our efforts to obtain industry. Despite our qualifications for assimilation of new industry, a month ago the county of Prince Edward was turned down by an industry because the people who represented the industry said they could not accept our offers in the face of the attractive offers made by the Department of Industry with regard to designated areas. They have gone to a designated area.
The minister has said that his policy in respect of designated areas is successful. That may be so, but it has been disastrous to non-designated areas. He is carrying out this policy at the expense of the rest of Canada and the taxpayers thereof. In the non-desig-nated areas, which the government of course must have decided were industrially healthy, the people there also pay the taxes to help finance the designated area plan and they certainly are not in favour of it. It is unfair, discriminatory and very frustrating to hundreds of municipal councils and chambers of commerce. Hundreds of municipalities and towns all across Canada place a levy on their taxpayers to finance programs designed to attract industry. The designated area program is stultifying all their efforts and nullifying whatever they hope to accomplish in 23033-3761
Supply-Industry
the current year because of the better offers made and the larger grants paid by the government to prospective industry if it will settle in an area where the government wants it to settle.
There is nothing fair about this plan. The whole of Canada is watching it. I caution the minister. A few minutes ago he said that if it did not work he would make changes. I admonish the minister and his department right now to forget about this idea and be fair to the whole country.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I certainly am not going to take up too much of the time of the committee. I know that is a popular saying at this stage of estimates. I have, however, been provoked into speaking this afternoon because of several statements made and the attitude adopted. I cannot say I agree entirely with the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek but that is not unusual. I might say I am saying that in a personal vein. I should like to say also that I think that some of the things he said are completely true, particularly in regard to attitude.
I wish to make one thing very clear. In the areas which have been designated and have had the benefit of this assistance, I think the policy has certainly been successful. The minister knows the representations I made to him earlier. I was amazed at some of the answers he gave me last evening to pointed questions, but I should like to make an observation in respect of his approach. I recall very well an occasion when I accompanied a large delegation from several different constituencies. At that time the minister unfortunately was not present. As a matter of fact, the reception I received on that occasion from the present Minister of Finance was warm, sensible and sympathetic. The results of the meeting were nil, not because of the attitude of the Minister of Finance but because of the general attitude taken by the Minister of Industry.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Let me make a brief comparison as to what has happened in various areas. The minister tells me that on a statistical basis he does not, strictly speaking, make any decisions at all as to designation but that various areas are designated because of their particular circumstances. Let us consider the counties of Grey and Bruce and other associated counties in that part of the Georgian bay area. I hold no feeling whatsoever against the people who

June 3, 1966
Supply-Industry
have the advantage of designation. The results of designation have been wonderful and the advantages enjoyed by the people there have been tremendous. Let us consider the town of Kincardine, which is not in my constituency, and the towns of Southampton and Port Elgin. The latter two fall within a designated area whereas Kincardine does not. There is no justification for this fact at all.
Let us compare the situations of the town of Walkerton and the city of Midland. There is no comparison at all and the designation of Midland is ridiculous. The city of Midland enjoys the highest rate of employment that any community could wish but the advantages of designation are given to it and not to Walkerton. Let us compare the situations of the towns of Chesley and Meaford. There is no comparison there, yet one has the advantages of designation. Let us compare the towns of Port Elgin and Kincardine, the towns of Walkerton and Owen Sound, or let us compare them with Midland again. There is no comparison at all. Yet some have the advantages of designation and others do not.
The minister tells me that all these places qualify because of their own circumstances, but that statement is utterly ridiculous. I assure the minister that I am not making these remarks to antagonize him. At one time it was said to me: Do you want to accept the responsibility of removing the designation from the Georgian bay area? I said no and I say no again this afternoon. However, I certainly would be willing to accept the responsibility for designating the balance of the Georgian bay economic region as established by the province of Ontario.
This sort of designation nonsense has got to stop. If we are going to consider economic areas as such let us consider them that way. What is the minister trying to do, play politics with these designations? I do not think he is because he has not had any success in that area as shown by the lack of elected members in the government party. These designations should be made on a moral and sensible basis. I was informed, I think by an official of the minister's department, that all the economic factors were taken into consideration in designating an area. I asked what was meant by that and I was told that the factors taken into consideration include income from welfare and that sort of thing. Goodness me, if we are going to consider pensions and old age assistance in respect of the criteria we are not being honest about the situation. Certainly that is

not an honest or fair approach. In the particular areas to which I have referred the young people do not remain there because there is no incentive. If we are given the incentive to attract industry to our area we will be able to keep our young people working there, but the minister is not prepared to give us that incentive.
This government has taken a dictatorial attitude in that we are going to have universality in respect of everything. We have been forced to pay into the Canada Pension Plan and we will be forced to pay into medicare. Yet the minister is forcing the people who should enjoy the benefits of designation right out of the areas where they now live. This is a totally wrong attitude on the part of the minister and his department and I believe a revision of thinking should take place.
I am sure everyone recalls the discussion that took place here last week regarding the proposed increases in tolls on St. Lawrence seaway and the Welland canal. This is another factor that will deprive us of a certain element of growth. If we are going to create something that will be of benefit to people, let us not put roadblocks in the way.
Not long ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture where on earth all the pork came from that was imported into this country. We appealed to the government to assist this section of the agricultural industry, but it allowed approximately 2,500,000 pounds of pork to be imported by a processer for the express purpose of depressing an industry which exists in the area. In spite of that fact the minister and his department will not give us what they could give us by way of designation. The minister must change his attitude in this regard.
Let me return to my original statement. I brought a group of people to Ottawa to meet with the minister and officials of his department. In my view the delegation took a very moral and sensible attitude toward the situation. I am sure the minister realizes that the people in our area have the ability to attract industry but, for goodness sake, give them every advantage they can get in their attempt to create a large area of development in western Ontario. All I am asking the minister to do is to revise his policy and for designation purposes to use the boundaries of the economic divisions set up by the department of development and economics of the province of Ontario. That department has attempted to do a good job but it is being discriminated against by the policy of the
June 3, 1966

minister and his department. If we are going to have reasonable and sensible area development and if we are going to spend the kind of money involved, for goodness sake let the minister and the department adopt a fair and moral attitude.
I was ridiculed a few weeks ago when I argued against the redistribution of my area as a result of which my constituency will disappear. However, the government is according me one honour in that I will be the last member to represent the riding of Grey-Bruce with the distinction that the members for that constituency have brought to the House of Commons over the years. However, the people I have the honour of representing now will be disregarded even more after redistribution because of being lost in the big shuffle. There is enough disregard now for this part of the province of Ontario, and these are the people for whom I have great concern. We have the ability to attract industrial organizations to our area and we have proven that in the past, but you are not going to accomplish decentralization in this area by compounding the problem through discriminatory action.
I do not intend to come to the minister on bended knee requesting that this area be given the advantages of the designation program. As a matter of fact, after my last experience I would not even waste the time required to make another request. I do ask the minister to take a further look at this situation and act in a fair and moral way in determining government policy and its application so that the area can be given the advantages that are being afforded to other areas in this country.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, to change the pace I should like to obtain some information from the Minister of Industry. Will the minister indicate the number of areas that have been added to the list of designated areas under this plan? I have talked with the minister about this subject and I think he knows what I have in mind. As an example, the Grand Forks area was added to the Okanagan designated area. I am wondering how many similar areas in Canada have been added to other designated areas. How many contiguous areas have been added to existing designated areas?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I can answer that question or that I really understand it. The problem of designation involves the identification of areas of high
Supply-Industry
chronic unemployment. In order to identify them and provide assistance one must have information relating to employment. There has been a system in existence for a number of years under the national employment service of gathering and collating statistical information in relation to national employment service areas. This information is gathered and related to an area as a whole rather than to segments or individual parts. In our search for some means of identifying large areas in Canada suffering from high chronic unemployment the only measuring stick available was that provided by N.E.S. statistics. For that reason the N.E.S. areas provide the framework for designation, and when in a given N.E.S. area the pattern of unemployment is above a certain figure the area becomes designated. When the unemployment pattern falls below a certain figure the area is de-designated.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
The process of creating designated areas in hitherto undesignated areas and designating those areas whose level of employment has fallen has been taking place ever since the beginning of the program. I am not sure whether the hon. member is asking me for a list of areas which were designated at the beginning of the program and have been de-designated. If this is so, I would be glad to give him this information. It is all contained in the original order in council which was tabled and in the subsequent order in council which was also tabled.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, my question did not refer to how many areas have been brought into the program and designated, and I am quite aware of the use of N.E.S. figures. I refer to the adding of an area which would normally be considered as having chronic unemployment to an already designated area. I believe that the town of Blairmore, Alberta, has been added quite recently to an area in British Columbia. This is my understanding after talking to the Liberal member from that area. I am wondering-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Let me interrupt for a moment, Mr. Chairman, to say that the Blairmore N.E.S. area, including the town of Blairmore, has been designated from the outset of the program. It was amongst the first areas to be designated and has continued to be designated ever since. There has been no change in respect of the town of Blairmore.

June 3, 1966
Supply-Industry


David Vaughan Pugh: Then might I ask the minister whether any area has been added to a designated area, the area added being of such a nature that in itself it would not qualify under the N.E.S. formula?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In respect of areas which in themselves might not qualify but have been designated, this applies to some census divisions and some counties contiguous to and touching on N.E.S. areas which have been designated. I think we discussed yesterday census divisions 12 and 13 in northern Alberta. I am not sure whether this is what the hon. gentleman refers to or whether he is looking at the situation in British Columbia. It may be that he is thinking of changes in the boundaries of the N.E.S. areas themselves. This is quite unrelated to designated areas.
The National Employment Service has over the years changed the pattern, shape and size of individual National Employment Service areas. This is done continually. As the economy of an N.E.S. area changes and development takes place in that general area of the country, perhaps the boundaries, as in the case of boundaries of political constituencies, are no longer appropriate. Previously the Department of Labour had responsibility in this regard but now it is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and it is continually looking at the size, shape and structure of the National Employment Service areas for national employment purposes. They periodically redraw these boundaries in the same way that the boundaries of political constituencies are periodically redrawn.
This happened in relation to the Vernon N.E.S. area. The boundaries that existed some three years ago did not seem to correspond any more to the economic facts of that region so the boundaries were changed. This is how Salmon Arm came to be included. The assumption is that it has been put into a designated area. In fact, what happened was that Salmon Arm was put into the Vernon N.E.S. area. The question now is whether Sicamous should also be included in that N.E.S. area. This has nothing to do with designation at all. I hope I have made myself clear.
An interdepartmental committee is now studying the N.E.S. areas all the way across the country to see how appropriate they are to current circumstances in the light of representations that have been made by a number of people, including the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. That hon. member's basic

unhappiness arises out of the fact that he does not like the way in which the National Employment Service has drawn the boundaries of the two N.E.S. areas in his constituency. Both these areas are in his county. The result is that part of his constituency is in an N.E.S. area which has been designated and part is in an N.E.S. area which has not been designated. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce would like the whole of his constituency to be designated. This is understandable.
There is no doubt that economic conditions close to and on either side of an N.E.S. line would be roughly similar. This is in the nature of things. Whether the dividing line should be a little north, south, east or west is something that is now being examined not only with regard to the Pembina area but for all N.E.S. areas in Canada.


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to clear up one point, Mr. Chairman, because I think it is fairly important. The minister has said that in the efflux of time there have been changes in economic conditions and other circumstances which have resulted in the N.E.S. boundaries being changed. I wish to pinpoint one thing. Has any area been added to a designated area, at the request of the people in the area added, with no redrawing of the N.E.S. boundaries? This is the specific question. I am relating it precisely to the Grand Forks area, about which the minister knows, and the Okanagan Boundary designated area. Grand Forks is not designated; the Okanagan Valley is. Has any similar area been added to an already designated area other than with respect to N.E.S. boundary changes?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I can say no quite categorically, Mr. Chairman, and I hope this will never occur. We are authorized to designate N.E.S. areas, contiguous counties and census divisions, so that the areas which, as the hon. member put it, can be added must either be N.E.S. areas, counties or census divisions. The only way to incorporate additional territory is to change the boundaries of N.E.S. areas or those of counties or census divisions. But it has not been, and I hope it will not be, the case that additional territory or people have been added merely by reason of the fact that representations have been made.


Mr. O'Keefe:: Mr. Chairman, may I as a representative of one of the provinces which has benefited quite a bit from this imaginative legislation introduced by the minister say that we congratulate him. We think he has done a very good job in the designated area
June 3, 1966

program. It seems more than merely passing strange to sit here and hear some of the rather bitter criticism from hon. members opposite, members of a party which some years ago formed a government which did precious little in my estimation to help solve or even try to cure any of the problems that have been tackled so energetically, and in many cases cured, by the Minister of Industry. They had five or six years to do these things, and while I agree they did some good things they could scarcely help doing them in that length of time.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he not think that $20 million spent on technical and vocational schools in Newfoundland was of some good to that province?


Joseph Phillip O'Keefe: I said you did some good and that was one of the good things, possibly one of the best, but it was one of the very few things. Under this program we will have 15 or 16 brand new industries, and some 36 million brand new dollars which we know will be used to provide a projected 1,000 brand new jobs. This is the kind of legislation we want. May I therefore congratulate the minister once again on his imaginative and liberal program.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I was very surprised to hear the member for St. John's East contribute to this debate. He reminds me of the story of the father who had two sons. He rewarded one and punished the other. It is like the fellow who receives something and then thanks you for it. I think the hon. member has taken a very narrow view in regard to the regions which are being discriminated against. This is the point we are trying to discuss. I heard the minister say in answer to the member for Okanagan Boundary that industry was induced to locate in certain areas for the sake of temporary relief of the unemployment problem. I say to the minister that this is a very expensive way of dealing with that problem.
As I said before, it is not the Department of Industry which should be dealing with unemployment but the Department of Labour because this program was not primarily designed to help the unemployed. As Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." The minister has been trying to tell us that this program assists industry. This
Supply-Industry
is not so; it is purely a labour program and should be left with the Department of Labour.
It is certainly true that these grants assist industry but, as I said before, they represent a short-range view of the problem of industry. You are forcing industries to locate in areas in which they do not wish to locate because of certain special factors and by offering incentives or bribes which you give to them under the guise of grants and writeoffs. It is only for this reason that they in fact locate their plants where you wish them to. However, if they took a long-term view of the economy of Canada, our foreign trade and everything else, they would choose other locations than the minister is forcing them to choose at the present time.
I agree with the minister that this program is not all bad; there must be some good in it. For instance, we have the example given by the hon. member for St. John's East of the $36 million received by Newfoundland which it would not have received if the program had not been put into effect. Nevertheless this was done at the expense of the non-designat-ed areas. Is that fair? I think it is discrimination. You are playing one region against the other. This is not fair from the point of view of the decentralization of industry and it is not fair with regard to the continuing problems that these regions will have. Above all, it is not fair to industry because, as I said earlier, you are creating problems which will be very difficult to overcome in the future when the incentive program is completed.
I also say to the minister that this is a very expensive way of dealing with the problem of unemployment. These are much better ways.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: What other ways?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Do you want me to go into them at the present time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, certainly.


John (Jack) McIntosh: All right. I will start with our secondary industries and the way in which they can be developed. One way is to make our goods competitive in foreign markets. The way to make them competitive is to adopt the measure taken by the former government.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. I appreciate the interest in the subject shown by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and by the minister but I am afraid the Chair will decide what will be discussed. We are still on item 1.

June 3, 1966
Supply-Industry


John (Jack) McIntosh: Apparently the minister
does not understand what we are trying to get across. I was going to tell him why this program is dangerous to the future of Canada, to its economy and its foreign trade. This is what we are trying to stop. If the minister wishes me to go into detail, I will certainly do so. I will also acquiesce to such a wish from the hon. member for St. John's East.
I simply wish to say at this time that this is a very expensive way of providing temporary relief for the unemployment situation in Canada. It is not an answer to that problem. We ask the minister to reconsider the program and change it to make it non-discriminatory.
Yesterday I listed many of the underprivileged areas. The minister is being unfair to many regions in Canada. I wish to draw the minister's attention to this fact. He said something about waiting for me to make a pilgrimage to his door. I say to the minister, don't hold your breath too long because you will never see the day when I will come to your door on my knees.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, if anything has come out of this debate it has been the general dissatisfaction with the area incentive program. In his opening remarks yesterday the minister chose to interpret the fact that there is so much opposition to this program as an indication of its success. He was pleased with the fact that people were putting forward different points of view. He interpreted this as a positive approach to this program. I would suggest to the minister that the contrary is probably true.
All of us surely recognize, in fairness to the minister, how difficult it is to implement such a program and how difficult it is to satisfy people with an area designated program which, as he points out himself, must of necessity be discriminatory in order to be effective. We realize he has to face a difficult problem.
I also think very few of us would quarrel with the idea of an area development program. We know there are disadvantaged regions in Canada, that many of these areas face difficult problems and that we have a responsibility to do whatever we can in their behalf. No one is arguing about this general principle. What we are quarrelling about, and the issue which we are now raising, concerns the particular method which the minister has chosen to implement area designation by using certain types of criteria.
[The Chairman.]
He has also explored other criteria, I am sure. As has been pointed out by some other speakers in this debate, to limit the criteria to the problem of unemployment is taking a short-range view of the situation. This is not an adequate concept of the area development program. I presume this is a formula which the minister has devised in order to ensure that no one will point a finger at him and say he is being arbitrary. It is a very rigid formula based on unemployment, income and other contingencies, and in this way he thinks he is being fair in the administration of the program. According to this formula, an area is eligible for the program if it falls within these criteria. This is really a lazy man's program and I do not believe the minister is a lazy man. He is certainly a most active man. He has implemented new programs and he has stuck his neck out on many occasions. However, this particular program is a lazy man's program. He is throwing things into the hopper and hoping they will work out.
* (12:40 p.m.)
In other words, the program requires a minimum amount of administration, a minimum amount of decision-making in order to make it work. Either an area fits or it does not fit. Everything is being stretched to fit into certain criteria in order to help the program work. Frequently, as has been pointed out, you kill innocent victims or at least you certainly maim them with this kind of program.
I am trying to be fair about this matter. I hope the minister will appreciate my concern. My riding is perhaps not affected so possibly I can be objective in this argument. During the debate the minister has heard a great deal of dissatisfaction with these criteria expressed. Members are obviously concerned about their ridings. Almost every week we see news items that an industry has moved out of area B into area C or A because of the incentives offered to do so. Naturally these members are greatly concerned and you can hardly blame a member for saying, let us scrap the whole program because it is not doing much good. This is not what we are saying.
Some provinces have come to the federal government and expressed their disapproval of the program because it was not in harmony with their own plans. I could mention the Maritimes, and there is also dissatisfaction in the province of Quebec where they are trying to establish growth centres based on a different type of criteria, economic planning and
June 3, 1966

the decentralization of industry. Manitoba has expressed its dissatisfaction because it does not like the way the federal government is offering help. The minister can say, as he has said, that the involvement of the federal government in this matter is limited because it can be based only on unemployment. This is a federal responsibility, but economic planning comes within federal jurisdiction to a very limited extent only. I suggest to the minister that perhaps what is called for at this time, in view of the great dissatisfaction which has been expressed in almost every part of Canada, is a federal-provincial conference on the subject of economic planning.
We need a conference to determine how these criteria will be interpreted or if there are better criteria than we have now instead of the limited approach the minister has taken to this subject. I respectfully suggest to the minister that we might first of all get our program in harmony with the plans of the provinces and, second, more in harmony with the whole concept of economic planning, the whole concept of economic feasibility as I used the term the other day. We should be putting industry into those areas where it has a reasonable opportunity for survival, where it can be productive. I resent using industry in this particular fashion to try to cure the short-term unemployment problem. It is admirable that the government wants to cure the short-term problem. I suggest that in the long run, however, if we use industry in this fashion and try to locate industry for this purpose, the long-term problem will be extremely difficult to solve. We will be impairing our ability to be productive and competitive. I think this is something we have to consider seriously.
There is no sense in enticing somebody into an area if the prospects for his long-term survival are not going to be good. When I spoke the other day I perhaps used some fairly strong language to describe this type of program. I do not believe this is the time for strong language. I hope the minister realizes we do not want to hold up these estimates, but the reason this debate has taken place is our deep concern about the criteria. As the hon. member for Timiskaming has pointed out, what do we do about it? How do we, as members of parliament, indicate to the minister that some change has to take place in this method of designation, in establishing these criteria? We have an example here of interfering with the free enterprise system. The untrammelled, free enterprise system has a
Supply-Industry
certain logic of its own, a certain ruthless logic if you like. An industry locates where it suits that industry, without regard to social considerations. We no longer accept this proposition. I am talking about all of us. We accept it to different degrees perhaps, but by and large we think there are social responsibilities to Canada.
We have, as I said, interfered with the workings of the free enterprise system and we have interfered in such a way as to get the worst of both worlds. We get neither the advantages that accrue when businessmen base decisions only on their self-interest nor the advantages which come from proper government economic planning based on getting the best co-operation in certain areas, the best long-range studies and so on, to enable us to do this sort of thing. If we do undertake such a program we will require staff to conduct investigations, economic feasibility studies, land use studies and that kind of thing in order that we will be able to say: This is what we should be doing here; we should be moving secondary industry in with primary industry. Perhaps we have to consider rate of extraction of a resource in an area based on a resource in order to ensure that after 15 or 20 years the resource does not dry up and we are left with a ghost town. You have to do this sort of thing if you are going to have a proper area development program. Perhaps it should not be called an area development program; it should be called an area plan. You cannot do this unilaterally at the federal level. You must do this in conjunction with the provincial governments. You must sit down and work out a national program in harmony with provincial objectives.
It is for this reason we are most anxious that the whole question of designated areas and the establishment of criteria be referred to a committee so that we can have a full discussion of this problem. We cannot solve it in a few hours debate. The problem is too complicated. All we can do in a debate of this kind is to point out our dissatisfaction with the program. The minister has already given us some assurance that he will try to improve the program. I am sure he will do everything in his power to see that the problem is referred to a committee, the proviso being that the committee has the time to study it. I suggest that the problem is of such importance the minister should be prepared to give assurance that a special committee will be set up to ensure a study being made. This program simply is not working the way we

June 3, 1966
Supply-Industry
would like to see it work, and it is not working, I feel, the way the minister would like to see it work. It is a program of limited application and I submit it has probably caused trouble for more people than it has helped.
I have listened to this debate with interest. If the minister thought I was just being obnoxious yesterday, I think he has had an opportunity now to ascertain that a number of other people feel the same say. If the committee had an opportunity to vote on this matter I am sure they would decide it should be discussed further. I am not one of those who say the criteria have not been effective. I have had an opportunity of speaking to the chairman of the committee, as I am sure the minister has, and I hope the minister will say the committee has agreed that th's matter can be referred to it.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I am shocked that the minister would sit there and allow the item to pass without making that sort of concession after the matter has been discussed and I think some agreement arrived at.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I have been advised by the chairman of the committee on industry, research and energy development that the steering committee, having been consulted, is prepared to consider this question. As a consequence I will take whatever steps are necessary to have referred to that committee the subject matter of the designated area program and the criteria therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now turn to vote No. 1 of the National Research Council, including the Medical Research Council.


Michael Starr: Is this under the Department of Industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think, Mr. Chairman, there may be an error here. The votes of the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council have not been formally entered in committee of supply.


Michael Starr: The Department of Defence Production is next.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is merely the Department of Industry as a department which is now being considered. The next department to be considered as a department is the Department of Defence Production.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Defence Production.



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including the care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling and grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on Crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $21,330,800.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Supply-Defence Production
The Canada-United States defence development and production sharing program, which has become an important part of the department's activities, aims at the optimum utilization of the Canadian and United States defence industrial capabilities by providing equal opportunity for Canadian industry to participate with United States industry on the bases of price, delivery and technical competence in meeting North American defence requirements. About 380 Canadian companies have obtained contracts under the program since its inception in 1959. While government activity has concentrated upon the creation of a climate of opportunity for Canadian industry to compete for United States defence business, the program depends for its success on the continued efforts of Canadian industry.
The agreed objective of the program is to assure maintenance of a long-term balance at the highest practicable level in reciprocal procurement of items of mutual defence interest.
The total of United States defence production sharing business obtained by Canadian companies from 1959 to December, 1965, has amounted to over $1.1 billion. During the calendar year 1964, this business amounted to $167 million and to nearly $260 million in 1965.
Canada's ability to compete in future defence production programs would be lost if we did not continue defence research and development projects in Canada to sustain the technological capability of our industry to produce the complex equipment that is required today. The Canadian government has, since 1959, provided assistance to Canadian companies to undertake development projects for both the United States and other allied defence programs. Financing is carried out on a cost-shared basis between the government, Canadian companies, and the United States or other allied governments.
From the inception of the program to the end of the calendar year 1965, a total of 105 defence development projects have been approved or recommended for government assistance to sustain technological capability in Canadian defence industry. Government expenditures have totalled $69 million. The program to the end of December, 1965, has stimulated $189 million in research and development activity in Canada aimed at meeting the defence requirements of the United States


and other governments. Specific projects supported by the government's development assistance which have resulted in large-scale production for defence export include, in the aircraft field, a small gas turbine engine in the 500 horsepower range which is proving highly successful in military and civil applications; and in the electronics field airborne doppler radar navigation equipment and crash position indicator equipment are examples of items which are selling very well.
Although the department's international activity has been primarily oriented toward the United States, important opportunities are arising in other countries. This stems in part from the fact that unilateral weapon development in NATO and other countries is rapidly giving way to bilateral and multilateral arrangements between countries aimed at making the most effective and economic use of our individual and joint capabilities, replacing competition by co-operation, and conserving industrial and economic resources. Canadian defence industrial planning, therefore, must to an increasing degree be based on allied as well as Canadian military requirements and must be harmonized with the defence development and production plans of those countries with which our military planning is closely associated.
The past year has seen increased emphasis in our overseas international co-operation and bilateral defence trade activities. Departmental representatives have visited a number of European countries and Australia and New Zealand to develop further opportunities for closer collaboration and to survey potential defence export markets. Conversely, defence procurement missions from Britain, France, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and Australia have visited Canada and we expect that some of these exchanges will result in increased co-operation in defence development and production between our respective countries.
The Anglo-Canadian committee on defence research, development and production, which was formed in 1963, last met in September, 1965. Considerable progress has been made through this committee toward a co-operative approach to the defence requirements of Britain and Canada.

The most recent event of importance in the area of bilateral co-operation was a meeting held early in December 1965 to set the stage for a Franco-Canadian Co-operation Committee on defence research, development and
June 3. 1966	COMMONS
production. As a result, we are at the present time actively employed in considering the precise possibilities of increasing industrial co-operation for defence between France and Canada.
By their very nature, such undertakings are not quickly translated into actual industrial defence projects. Nevertheless, a good start has already been achieved in co-operation with a number of countries and we are in a position to expect that practical results will be more noticeable in the future.
The rising trend of defence equipment exports to overseas countries appears in the statistics of Canadian industrial volume which amounted to some $45 million in 1962, to $53 million in 1963, to nearly $60 million in 1964 and to approximately $68 million in 1965.
The Canadian Commercial Corporation which, as I have indicated, has been incorporated with the Department of Defence Production, continues to assist in the development of trade with other countries by supplying a contract completion service to foreign governments wishing to purchase defence equipment and other supplies in Canada at the government level.

The Department of Defence Production also continues to make progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Government Organization relating to the department. As I have already mentioned, the government has approved the establishment within the department of a central purchasing agency to serve all departments and agencies of the federal government other than the commercially-oriented Crown corporations, and has also approved the establishment of the basis for an integrated supply service.
As far as purchasing is concerned, appreciable progress has been made since 1964 when we first integrated the purchasing functions of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. During the year 1965 the Department of Public Works purchasing responsibilities in regard to furniture, janitorial supplies and maintenance, repair and operating supplies in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal, were transferred to the Department of Defence Production. The personnel associated with these functions were also transferred to and integrated in the department.
DEBATES	5935
Supply-Defence Production
[DOT] (1:10 p.m.)
In accordance with the over-all plan and schedule which was prepared for the orderly transfer of the purchasing functions of other government departments and agencies during the next few years, the purchasing functions hitherto undertaken by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and those undertaken by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources for units in the Northwest Territories were transferred to D.D.P.
The purchasing responsibility for all government departments and agencies for our new national flag has been given to my department, and on April 1, 1966, the merger of the purchasing functions of the Department of Veterans Affairs was completed, while on May 1 the department assumed the purchasing functions for the national museum.
We have firm plans for assuming the purchasing functions during 1966 for the Department of National Health and Welfare, the national parks and historic sites (eastern and western areas) of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and the public archives and national library of the Department of the Secretary of State. My officials are also working closely with the Department of Transport in order to plan for the consolidation of some of their purchasing activities later this year.
In the field of supply the initial phase in the organization of a Canadian government supply service has been completed. This phase entailed the establishment of a basic organization of six headquarters branches whose specialized technical staff will engage in research and policy formulation in the fields of cataloguing, specifications and standards, regional purchasing, warehousing and distribution, traffic management and quality assurance.
These headquarters branches will ensure that the Canadian government supply service takes full advantage of the most up-to-date procedures, methods and techniques and equipment. This means an effective system of identification and classification of items, the preparation of specifications and the establishment of standards for the most commonly used items, the determination of the most economical purchasing methods, the latest warehousing techniques, and efficient control of transportation costs and the assurance that there is an acceptable quality level in the
5936	COMMONS DEBATES	June 3. 1966
Supply-Defence Production items that are purchased for the consumption of the federal government departments.
I commend these estimates to the consideration of the committee and hope for their early approval.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the minister?
Concerning the purchases made by his department, are instructions given to purchase Canadian goods except where it is absolutely impossible to do so?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As a matter of principle, Mr. Chairman, efforts are made to buy and find Canadian goods. As I have explained, my department goes as far as to promote Canadian production of some items which were not previously produced in Canada.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Chairman, I have little to say about the statement which the minister has made but I hope this is the right time to deal with the Crown Assets Disposal Cor-noration because I have one or two matters to mention in connection with its operations. I have before me a letter written to an Edmonton firm by William C. Gow, salesman, of the Calgary office of the corporation under date of May 5. It reads:
Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of April 28th, 1966, requesting confirmation that the above named firm is still on the mailing list for surplus vehicles.
We wish to advise that our revised procedure only permits us to sell to distributors, garages and licensed dealers in the automotive trade.
I ask, does this letter refer only to surplus automobile equipment owned by the government? The letter continues:
We are attaching hereto an application form and in the event that you comply with the above conditions would you please complete and return to this office in order that we may review your request and if acceptable return your firm's name to our mailing lists.
Please accept our thanks for bringing this matter to our attention and we anticipate your early reply in this regard.
The firm in question, Midland Mortgage, has been interested in excess buildings, and I have an application in front of me respecting some buildings that have been declared surplus in the Beaverlodge area. This company was interested in their acquisition but I understand it does not qualify to remain on the corporation's list.

I would like to know the minister's definition of licensed dealers. Who is qualified to buy surplus commodities from the government? Are the three categories listed in this letter the only people entitled to buy them? If they are, I cannot see why a garage or automobile distributor would be interested in buying chicken coops, portable hay houses and portable hog houses available at Beaverlodge.
Is the letter incomplete? Does it mean that people in the construction business can buy buildings, people in the automobile business can buy automobiles and people in the office equipment business can buy surplus office equipment? Is that the intent of the department?
What are the criteria under which people can qualify to be put on the list? I understood previously that any legitimate business could be put on the list, but these people in Edmonton have been notified that they do not qualify and therefore are no longer on the list.
I would like to know why the corporation uses the method of advising only those people on its list about the availability of surplus crown assests. I suggest it might be wise to consider the principle followed by provincial governments. Applied to the federal government it would mean that such assets would be advertised in all the national newspapers thus allowing everybody to bid on surplus government commodities. This would eliminate any suggestion of discrimination or political patronage. Every farmer in the west with the necessary resources would then be able to bid on the surplus agricultural buildings at Beaverlodge.
[DOT] (1:20 p.m.)
The provincial governments find this method very effective. They are able to realize a fair price for surplus commodities. I suggest to the minister that he should consider using that system rather than the present one because when Midland Mortgage, as I have mentioned, is taken off the list for very little reason one might think that there is patronage involved with respect to who should and who should not be on the list. How are people put on the list? Are you invited? Do you answer? No one really knows. Do you go to your member of parliament and say: "I want to get on the list"? How does a contractor in the city of Edmonton, for example, make inquiries concerning how he can get on the list? Does he communicate with the people in Crown Assets Disposal Corporation? How is
June 3, 1966

it done? I should like to have an answer from the minister in this regard. In view of the many cancellations in respect of the old and existing lists, I think it would clear up a very important question in the minds of some of the business people, particularly in my area.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I do not know the circumstances surrounding the Midland Mortgage Placements Company Limited removal from the list, as the hon. gentleman puts it. I hope to have that information a little later. Let me say, however, that in general Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is charged with the task of disposing of surplus commodities entrusted to it for disposal. These are commodities surplus to the requirements of the Crown. In the disposal of these commodities the corporation endeavours to realize, through sale, the best possible price for the taxpayer. Obviously the return to the taxpayer is a net of the sale price realized less the cost of selling.
Through experience over the years Crown Assets Disposal Corporation has concluded that in respect of some commodities it is better economics to carry on business selling to wholesalers than it is to try to get themselves into the retail business. In respect of other items it is better, and indeed essential, to do the retailing job themselves. In the case of buildings or properties, for instance, they operate as retailers; they advertise as widely as possible and send out invitations to tender or bid in respect of the properties. Anyone who wishes to put in a bid is free to do so and indeed is encouraged to do so. In respect of certain commodities which may recur, however, notably scrap metal and scrap clothing, and which periodically appear on their list for disposal, they have developed a pattern of selling to the trade. They have discovered it is productive of a much better return to sell to the trade for disposal and resale than it is to conduct a series of public auctions or engage in whatever other method there may be of retailing the commodities.
It costs more to sell to the trade at retail than it does at wholesale and the net is higher on occasion, as has been shown by experience, by selling to the wholesale trade. This is in relation to scrap. In relation to any surplus commodity, however, whether it be buildings, property or movables, anybody is entitled to put in a bid. The high bidder, who is financially responsible, of course-and I must always make that exception-gets the sale. I have one qualification only to make to
Supply-Defence Production that and it is in relation to surplus motor vehicles. This is a special case. Apart from that anyone is entitled to bid and the high bidder makes the purchase. So in so far as items other than motor cars are concerned Midland Mortgage Placement Company Limited is free to bid and free to buy anything and everything. The only things demanded of them are (a) financial responsibility and (b) the high bid.
In order to encourage interest in bidding Crown Assets Disposal Corporation has a list of people who in the past have been in the habit of buying and who have demonstrated a real interest in buying as distinct from merely curiosity. Anyone who has demonstrated or any corporation which has demonstrated a real interest in buying is put on a list and the list is circulated. Duplicates of the public notices of sale are sent to the person or the corporation to make sure that the advertisement is not overlooked. In this way it is drawn to their attention in the hope that they will bid. In order for anyone to get on this list all we ask is that they exhibit something more than mere curiosity so that the Crown is not put to the expense of sending out these notices to somebody who never is going to make a purchase. People who in the past have been receiving these notices and have never done anything about them are crossed off. This is the list to which I think the hon. member has been referring.
If Midland Mortgage Placement Company Limited is serious about bidding, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is delighted to send them notices of invitation to tender in the hope that these will produce real bids.


William Skoreyko: With the exception of
automobiles.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes. The question of automobiles is another story. Recently the Department of Defence Production has undertaken the task of acquiring automobiles to meet all the requirements in the government service and not merely in the Department of National Defence. This gives rise to the problem of how to dispose of the vehicles for which the new vehicles generally are replacements. Most of the new vehicles are replacements rather than original equipment to fill a need which never existed before. So there is a turnover problem. Previously, under the old practice of allowing individual departments and agencies to make their own deals in any way they could with any dealer whom they chose, this problem of disposing of surplus
June 3, 1966

Supply-Defence Production vehicles did not arise because part of the purchase price involved in getting a new car was taken in the old one.
We have explored quite extensively with the trade, from the Crown's point of view, the most advantageous technique by which to dispose of the surplus cars. The various techniques which occur to me offhand are private sales such as one might make through a newspaper advertisement in the personal columns, public auctions, sales to individual dealers on a negotiated basis or by inviting dealers and the general public to bid, or sales to the wholesalers again on a negotiated basis. There are many alternatives which present themselves. One has to arrive at a device or system which will meet in the best possible way the situation where 30 cars have to be disposed of at one time in the city of Toronto or one car at Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. Obviously it is difficult to have a uniform, single technique which is going to cover all of these situations.
[DOT] (1:30 p.m.)
We have come to the conclusion, and so far this is only experimental until we see how it works, that the best way to do this, in order not to disrupt the trade and produce instability of prices by dumping large numbers of cars on occasion on the retail market, is to deal only with the trade, namely, dealers, in the hope that we will obtain a continuing interest and market with a consequential stability of the market. That is our approach and it is for that reason that Midland Mortgage, which does not by its name sound like a second hand car business, would not be invited to bid for used cars.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question because of the statement that the general methods employed by the corporation have pretty well been maintained over the years. Perhaps I misunderstood the minister and, if so, I hope he will correct me.
In 1964 the public accounts committee had some anxiety about the methods employed by the corporation, its disposal procedures and techniques. This anxiety was particularly applicable to certain negotiations and transactions which took place in regard to the Department of National Defence. That committee made some recommendations in its seventh report in 1964 to the effect that sales inspection procedures followed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation should be revised with a view to improving sales techniques. Some time in November of 1965 the minister

replied that steps had been taken or were being taken by the corporation to revise and upgrade its operating instructions in the area of pre-sales analyses and inspections. He also stated that the corporation proposed to undertake a more aggressive sales campaign in such areas as market research and analysis to develop new methods of improving its solicitation lists and explore ways and means of interesting new and substantial merchandising outlets. I was interested in this in view of what the hon. member for Edmonton East said about developing new methods of improving the solicitation list.
Can the minister tell us whether, after his statement of February and in line with what he said, these new techniques have actually been instituted and whether the corporation is making progress in this regard? Has the corporation been successful as a result of these new techniques in displaying a somewhat better method of developing solicitation lists than was displayed at least to the public accounts committee when it investigated this matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I did not and do not want to give the impression that Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is unchanging or unchangeable. What I really should have said, in relation to the hon. member's question, is that sales to the public and to the highest bidder and realizing the highest returns to the Crown are objectives that do not change. As to the means of achieving these objectives, improvements undoubtedly can be effected.
The views and advice of the public accounts committee have been accepted with enthusiasm by the corporation and a number of them have been put into effect. Others are in the process of being incorporated, but I am not sure that others are entirely appropriate to the degree that the public accounts committee suggested. Considering the size of the Crown Assets Disposal's operation, one can very quickly understand that as a sales organization it could bankrupt itself by spending too much money on marketing investment. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that. Certainly a little more in the way of marketing analysis than has perhaps been the case in the past would be and has proven useful in respect of Crown Assets.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the hon. minister
make some reference to the phrase "solicitation lists"?
June 3. 1966


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Solicitation can be done in a number of ways. As I have indicated, one is by public advertising in newspapers and other media, and this costs a certain sum of money in terms of the impact one creates. Another method is by direct mail. I suppose those are the two most important ones. At the present time Crown Assets is employing both, and from time to time in respect of particular commodities more of one and less of the other or more of the other and less of the one proves to be the most efficacious in achieving effective price bid solicitations. The corporation does want to get as much interest in what it is selling and as many bids as possible, having in mind always that one must not allow the cost of the solicitation to become unreasonable in terms of the advantage obtained through having a few more bids. I am sure the hon. gentleman appreciates that fact.
As the public accounts committee has pointed out, perhaps not enough emphasis has been placed on active solicitation at some additional expense. Perhaps this would be desirable and I think it is in the process of taking place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman:: This concludes the estimates of the Department of Defence Production. We shall now study the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration including the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker; the promotion of programs for combating seasonal unemployment; the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and the manpower consultative service, $3,913,500.
Mr. Marchand:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I was slightly late. I just had a sandwich so I would be able to read this statement.
TTranslation]
Mr. Chairman, in the course of the next weeks and later in the session, the house will have before it at various times the consideration of the plans of my department. As a result, my statement will be restricted to the estimates and general remarks indicating our major aim and the projects we are trying to carry out.
May I first be permitted to pay tribute, whatever their political persuasion, to my predecessors in the Department of Citizenship
DEBATES	5939
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration and Immigration and in the Department of Labour. I should also like to note the devotion of the officials of these two departments, particularly during the past few months, while the changeover and the new direction was being prepared.
The functions assigned to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as well as the establishment of a new department which will direct manpower policies and programs at the national level would seem, I feel, to make up a most interesting program, the importance of which must be stated.

Successive governments have developed a variety of programs designed to improve the utilization of our human resources. There are many good programs already in existence and the department of manpower will not be launched with the idea that all present programs need to be replaced.
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
We do believe that existing programs can be made much more effective within a single agency and that agency can also plan, develop and implement whatever new programs are required. I know that members fully appreciate why manpower policy has become so important. We all recognize that the increasing rate at which the world is changing requires in people an adaptability never before necessary in our history, and that in our society the pace of change itself is accelerated. We cannot arrest these changes. We must accept a new pace, understand it, master it and profit from it.
The estimates you are being asked to approve bring together in the one department the national employment service, the immigration service, the training, rehabilitation, mobility and winter employment programs, the manpower consultative service and the groups responsible for economic and social research and labour market analysis. All the active manpower programs are to be the responsibility of one strong, integrated, national manpower service with offices across Canada organized to give a full range of advice, counsel and service to worker and employer.

I believe that concerning the organization and the arrangement of the staff, the progress achieved tends to increase the efficiency of the department. We can already rely upon several skilled and devoted employees. In the
June 3, 1966
5940	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration years to come, our first aim will be not to initiate new plans but rather to get ready to increase the results of present programs, to improve on their quality, to make them more accessible to those who will need them and to render services where required.
Such is the state of mind with which we are inspired in setting up a manpower service based on the organization that other bodies and other departments have already created. Integrated as to its purpose, the manpower service will be highly decentralized in its organization. It will be concerned with the different needs in various areas and yarious industries. Its scope and objectives will be national, taking the regional needs into account. Furthermore, it will operate in close co-operation with the provincial governments.
The five regional directors will be responsible for all federal manpower programs, for the National Employment Service as well as for the numerous other work performed up to now in the department at Ottawa. The regional directors will be under the assistant deputy minister, but they will have at hand and under their direct orders, experts and specialists who will enable them to keep informed on the needs of industry, to work with the provincial governments and to support much more closely the local manpower offices. The personnel of the N.E.S. is much smaller that the staff authorized by parliament. We have an enormous job ahead of us, in the recruiting as well as in the organization. Our own staff training will be of major importance.

If I were asked, Mr. Chairman, to state the department's current objectives in their simplest terms, I would reply that we simply intend building an organization for doing things for people. Our purpose is to assist the growth of Canada by helping people to get better jobs and to do better jobs or broaden the opportunities that are open to them. Our concern is with the challenge of the present. It can all be said very simply, but I think that we all realize it may be very difficult and will require a complex and competent organization of dedicated and understanding people.
Immigration has been integrated with other elements of our manpower program in the new department. This is as it should be because immigration can in that way make its full contribution to the economic growth. I emphasize, however, that manpower is more
[Mr. Marchand.l

than economics. It is people. In putting immigration into the manpower department there is every realization that the role of immigration is not to be measured solely in economic terms nor as a precise response to manpower requirements alone at any given time.
The shortages in our manpower requirements, especially with regard to skilled or professional people, is of vast importance in shaping immigration programs, but there are other important factors as well, including the social and cultural ones. Canada's social and cultural development has benefited greatly from immigration over the years. That fact is and will remain in the forefront of our plans and our work toward a wise and comprehensive immigration policy.

Some people have claimed that to place immigration under manpower could be conducive to its being planned solely in terms of our economic needs, without due regard to the social and humanitarian considerations which should inspire it. It was feared in certain quarters that entrusting immigration to a department preoccupied with employment would lead to a timid and unsteady program, amenable to the least fluctuations of our economy and employment in Canada.
I cannot accept the idea that economic and manpower planning could harm immigration. On the contrary, an active manpower policy requires an active immigration policy capable of increasing its efficiency and promoting growth and prosperity in Canada.

Because immigration is such a vital factor in Canadian growth and development, because it affects so many lives, it is essential that immigration be carefully planned and executed. It means that to the best of our ability immigration must be administered in accordance with the basic principles of justice and humanity which Canadians demand in their national endeavours. The reason immigration and manpower should be so intimately related is precisely that they both are concerned with human resources. In operational terms, as the committee knows, there has been a great deal of work done in the immigration service in recent years to modernize and reorganize its facilities and strengthen its staff. I venture to say that in many ways it is ahead of the rest of the department and we are leaning heavily on
June 3, 196G

the experience and involvement of the immigration service in developing the department as a whole.
I have taken more time than I intended but I did wish to speak today in terms of the principles which are motivating the department. The needs are very great. We have high objectives and some of the organizational problems may be quite difficult. In no sense would I wish to convey to the committee that manpower has now become an exact science. I am looking forward to suggestions and will be glad to give or secure answers to any questions that hon. members may have regarding these estimates.

I should probably make clear that our estimates are presented to you in a provisional form as we are determining the responsibilities and duties of the new department. The estimates for 1965-66 respecting tasks previously entrusted to the Department of Labour are indicated only where all these tasks have been transferred and when a separate vote had been written down for this purpose in past year estimates. Where no amount is indicated for 1965-66, the vote of the previous year is transferred to the estimates of the Department of Labour.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, the hon. members of the house will accede to my request and approve the estimates before us.
[DOT] (1:50 p.m.)


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, these estimates reflect the as yet unconsummated marriage of immigration and labour. My desire to preserve the chastity of each is well known to members of the committee but it appears there is no option but to relax, if not to enjoy. And so, sir, I propose this afternoon to deal mainly with immigration and citizenship. Other members of the opposition will deal with matters related to manpower.
This is the second time in just over three months that the estimates dealing with immigration and citizenship have been before the committee of supply. The intervening brief three month period has supplied ample evidence, as I said at that time, that the department has suffered greatly as the result of being under four ministers during a period of less than three years. I wish to say that I do not think any of the ministers, least of all the present one, has had an opportunity to take firm control and become the active directing
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration head of the department of immigration. I sincerely regret the game of musical chairs that has been played in respect of the portfolio of citizenship and immigration and I think that the public interest has suffered thereby.
I know the Prime Minister is unrepentant in this respect and I only hope that in the short life of the present government the hon. member for Quebec West will be given the uninterrupted opportunity to become a firm directing head of the department and to bring into effect vigorous policies related to immigration.
First I would like to speak of citizenship before those estimates are placed under the Secretary of State. I have already stated my grave reservations about this change and I will not repeat them. However, I think that in no other aspect of the department has the unique faculty of this government for procrastination and legislative indolence been so amply demonstrated. What has happened to the once urgent and long promised amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act? What is the history of these amendments forecast at one stage by the hon. member for Papineau? Would you believe that in those early days when the Prime Minister was seeking to excite the bold and challenge the daring the first Speech from the Throne delivered on May 16, 1963 contained the following phrase:
A change in the citizenship act will be proposed to ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born.
I want hon. members to note those words. On hearing them parliamentarians of all parties gave three cheers. Their chorus of approval was premature. No final parliamentary action was taken while the hon. member for Papineau was minister of citizenship and immigration. So what happened? In the Speech from the Throne made on February 18, 1964, the following sentence appeared:
You will be asked to consider amendments to the citizenship act which will ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born.
Was any action taken? Of course not. In this first session of the new parliament, which opened on January 18 of this year, the author of the Speech from the Throne was highly original. He put it this way:
My government will propose legislation to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, in order to ensure equality of rights for all citizens.
June 3, 1966
5942	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
What a travesty of parliamentary leadership and action these three quotations represent. What is the result at this session? Parliament has been in session for four and a half months and the hon. member for Quebec West has done nothing to bring forward amendments to the Canadian Citizenship Act. If they were ready for introduction in 1963 as forecast by the Speech from the Throne, why could they not have been put on the order paper in January of this year?
If the amendments are what I expect them to be, we on this side of the house will put them through within a matter of minutes. However, parliamentary approval cannot be given to legislation forecast by a government which, with its typical languor or should I say somnolence neglects even to introduce it.
I do not like the legislative game being played of three successive Speeches from the Throne containing precisely the same forecast of legislation. If the government is serious in its intentions, let it act now. I say to the hon. gentleman: Introduce this bill, put it on the order paper tonight, not next week. The fact is that the government has no real interest in these amendments except as a carrot held out politically to influence naturalized Canadian citizens.
I put it to the minister now, and I have no doubt I will have to repeat it to the Secretary of State later, that it is time they stopped sitting on their hands; it is time they went to work to put into effect legislative reforms which were once so dear to the heart of the hon. gentleman from Bonavista-Twillingate. I think I can forecast what will happen. The next Speech from the Throne will contain the same pious hope. This is one prediction which I hope will not be fulfilled.
In my view this country has been lax and dilatory in its citizenship program. Last year I had the opportunity to visit Australia where I was vividly impressed with how much greater was their sense of national identity, their pride in nationhood, in the greatness of a wonderful and aggressive nation which, however, does not equal this land either in resources or in potential. We are throwing away the advantage that we have in this country.
Of course, I do not believe in jingoistic indoctrination but I do believe most earnestly that we are not giving sufficient support to the dedicated work of the officials of the


citizenship branch, nor is there sufficient coordination of the federal and provincial activities in the field of citizenship and of both with the educational systems.
Today, for the first time in a hundred years the survival of this nation is imperilled, and I believe a massive effort in the field of citizenship is imperative. Our philosophical objectives and our targets as a nation, our right to be proud of and to respect our various traditions and heritages should be delineated and promoted. Nothing less than a massive effort by the citizenship branch will be sufficient. I hope that when the minister replies he will tell us what the government plans in this field, what he plans in the field of citizenship education and registration. Is sufficient effort being made to encourage eligible persons to apply for citizenship? What are the plans for the establishment of additional courts of Canadian citizenship? What is being done to make Canadian citizenship ceremonies more impressive and more warmhearted?
[DOT] (2:00 p.m.)
From time to time I hear complaints about one or two judges of the courts of Canadian citizenship displaying sharp or at least unsympathetic attitudes to applicants. Personally I hope the present minister, or the Secretary of State when it becomes a matter for that minister, will talk turkey to any judges guilty of such conduct, for nowhere is it so important to have warmhearted understanding, friendly human treatment, as in these courts. Any judge who wraps himself in his judicial cloak and speaks and deals with applicants in the fashion of a harassed magistrate in a metropolitan police court is doing a grave disservice. One judge whose friendliness and warmhearted understanding is frequently commented upon to me is the local Ottawa and Carleton judge, Judge John A. Dawson. His broad knowledge of people, his general affection for all men, his lack of side or pomposity, his ability to combine firmness with charity, these qualities which he has demonstrated amply are qualities which should be emulated by all citizenship judges.
I should like now to say a word about another aspect of citizenship which concerns me greatly, namely, the handling of the so-called security cases. The minister and all his predecessors in this chamber will know the problem. It is one which caused me the gravest concern of any in my brief sojourn in the department. I confess I agonized over these files and wrestled with my conscience which I could never satisfy. The existing
June 3, 1966

system, I am certain, is wrong, blatantly wrong, and had I remained minister tor a month or two longer the system and the principles behind it would have been drastically altered. I think perhaps that is as far as I am entitled to go in the light of my Privy Councillor's oath. However, I urge most earnestly upon the minister and the Prime Minister that the terms of reference of the proposed royal commission on security be drafted to include a provision for consideration and report on this particular aspect of security. The minister will find in the departmental files a secret memorandum written by me at the end of my ministry, in my own indecipherable handwriting, expressing my views. I venture to submit that those views so expressed might be considered now by the minister and later by the royal commission.
The depriving of Canadian citizenship of persons who have been in Canada for lengthy periods, and who hold political views which are entirely legal in this country, is a most serious matter in a freedom loving nation.
I should like to turn to a discussion of immigration. As the committee knows, I am an unrepentant expansionist in connection with immigration policy. It is because of that that I confess I am a bit appalled at the audacity of the government in bringing forward these estimates without a white paper being presented, without even a prior acknowledgement of the existence of the Sedgwick report, with no statement of government policy about its important recommendations and without any action to revise and update the Immigration Act. I use the word "audacity" and I think it is an effrontery to parliament; yes, and it is arrogant. The government and the minister have been simply swinging the lead. I have no apology for saying to the minister that he has been swinging the lead in this respect. There have been questions in the house by various members on the imminence of a white paper, when would there be a statement of government policy, and he has simply avoided the issue.
His latest gem was a suggestion that the new policy would be announced soon to enable the hon. member for Carleton to sleep more peacefully. Well, sir, my sleep is unimportant.


Mr. Haidasz:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Richard Albert Bell: Delighted.
DEBATES	5943
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Stanley Haidasz: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he swung the lead when he was minister and failed to bring in any changes to the Immigration Act?


Richard Albert Bell: I will deal precisely with that situation. I took specific action which is now bearing fruit. This will be found in the files, and I recommended that we should have an expansionist policy in immigration. My friend knows that. He knows that as soon as I took command of that department I went out to the public and sought to gain support for an expansionist immigration policy.


Stanley Haidasz: But there was no change in the act when the hon. member was in charge of the department.


Richard Albert Bell: I will deal precisely with that before I finish. I will tell the hon. gentleman that the regulations were amended and a specific deadline date established when we would then advance the amendments to the Immigration Act.
Somehow, sir, we were discussing the question of my sleep. I say my sleep is unimportant compared with the long Rip Van Winkle sleep of this government. Not even a snore disturbs their slumbers. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre in my view is a man who really believes in immigration. If he had been kept in the immigration portfolio he would have done a tremendous job. However, he was shifted into a portfolio in which I do not believe he is extremely happy, and this is one of the major regrets that we in this house have.
The white paper on immigration was first mentioned on December 31, 1964, when the Prime Minister promised it at the beginning of the next session. Well, two sessions later we are still awaiting it. Four ministers have been unable to persuade the cabinet to adopt a white paper. The fault is not with the officials of the department. The two gentlemen over there know very well that the department can produce all the necessary material and have it ready within 48 hours, if the minister knew what he wanted to establish as a policy or if the cabinet would come to grips for a change with this important phase of our national life.
Now, sir, I think that actually this committee should refuse to pass these estimates without a white paper. Until I hear what the minister has to say about the inordinate delays that have occurred in connection with
June 3, 1966

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration this white paper, I reserve the right to move an amendment to reduce these estimates.
What about the Sedgwick report? We have not heard a word from the minister when lie introduced his estimates. The original section of that report dealing with ships' deserters has been in the hands of the government for 13 months. What has the government done? What is the attitude of the government? Can the government not make up its collective mind on this? We cannot get an answer out of the minister concerning the problem of Yugoslav ship deserters about which the hon. member for Ontario has inquired. What does the minister plan to do? Will he follow the Sedgwick formula? Has he now some new magic to deal with the problem? I am not unaware of the difficulties, and there is a member sitting close to the hon. gentleman who knows that. I submit to the minister that a difficult problem does not just disappear. This stalling is no substitute for initiative. When he replies I should like the minister to tell us precisely what he proposes to do with these Yugoslav deserters. What is his plan for the future of these people? He has had the report before him for 13 months, and I think this committee cannot grant the minister a permanent reprieve from decision.
Why did the minister not tell us today when he introduced his estimates about his policy in respect of part II of the Sedgwick report? I think it is a most significant document. I want to ask the minister certain specific questions and I hope he will make specific answers. Does he agree that a genuine appeal should be established in all cases from the making of an order for deportation? What is he doing to bring this about? Is he contemplating, as Mr. Sedgwick suggests, that he might establish a procedure of "exclusion orders"? Is he contemplating a new class of deportable persons, namely, persons in Canada who counsel or abet others to remain in the country illegally? What are his plans for an immigration appeal board? Does he propose to give it final discretion or does he support my view, contrary to Mr. Sedgwick, that a limited residual authority should remain with the minister?
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
These are genuine questions to which I think the committee is entitled to have answers. They might properly have been answered in a white paper. How can the minister expect the committee to vote him supply without these answers? What are his plans for the more than 20,000 people who are in

Canada illegally, according to Mr. Sedgwick who, indeed, adds that more are arriving daily? Does he propose an amnesty or moratorium?
Mr. Sedgwick had the courage to state his views clearly about sponsored immigration. These views, in which I do not concur, have caused consternation among a number of ethnic groups. What is the minister's policy? Does he propose to adopt Mr. Sedgwick's proposal to limit sponsorship to spouses and dependent minor children of Canadian citizens or landed immigrants? If he does, it will throw havoc into established patterns of immigration from Italy, Greece, Portugal and Hong Kong.
I think there must be great concern, Mr. Chairman, about sponsorships in some of the ethnic classes where in fact sponsorship exceeds the process of selection by our own immigration officers. But what does the minister propose? I think we are entitled to know this today.
What does the minister think about the processes and procedures of exempting by order in council a considerable number of individuals each week or so, or whenever an order in council can be passed, who are inadmissible under the regulations, a procedure so strongly condemned by Mr. Sedgwick? This, we remember, is how Hal Banks became a landed immigrant.
The Sedgwick report deals basically and fundamentally with all these issues. But a pigeonholed report is almost worse than no report at all. I want the minister to be frank and open with the committee and to give us the facts. I plead with him today not to try to rely on philosophical or brush-off answers to these very practical and realistic questions which I have put to him.
I ask him to tell us now to what extent the government is co-operating with the government of Manitoba in their free passage program to attract immigrants to that province. How will this program operate? Will it be attempted on a national scale?
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the committee should know that we simply cannot compete in the United Kingdom with the financial allurements offered by Australia. Nor do I think we can compete in other European countries. Three years ago I observed in Austria through a friend, the head of the Australian immigration mission to Austria, Mr. Fred Ordish, the manner in which that office in Vienna seeks to assist desirable immigrants to Australia. I only wish we gave
June 3, 19C6
our officers abroad equivalent support and assistance.
Then, sir, what of the proposed revision of the Immigration Act to which the hon. member for Parkdale referred? The previous government had specific plans for a full-out revision and then decided that as a first step a completely new set of regulations with major policy changes should be adopted as an interim measure. That government announced that as soon as a reasonable period of experimentation with these regulations had passed a full revision of the act would be undertaken. I do not know whether this has been forgotten. The regulations have now been in operation for five years.


Jean Marchand: Five years?


Mr. Bell (Carlefon):: Yes, I think so, or is it
four? No, it is five. The period of experimentation, I suggest, is over. I submit that a full revision of this obsolete, archaic Immigration Act is overdue. I would ask the minister whether he would consider referring the draft act to the standing committee which could hear witnesses, get information and give all those interested the opportunity to make presentations. I ask him today to come to grips with the problem, because I am getting tired of drift and procrastination as a general instrument of national policy.
The minister has undoubtedly been able to review the Edith Ferguson report for the international institute of metropolitan Toronto, which has condemned apparently in vigorous terms governmental inactivity, especially at the federal level, in the provision of funds, programs and co-ordination for immigrant education. I have not yet been able to secure a full text of the report but the report in the Globe and Mail of May 30, 1966, disturbs one in respect of settlement arrangements. The report states in part:
The study suggests that outdated attitudes toward education and toward immigrants are combining to hamper the Canadian economy.
Blame for a lack of funds to remedy the situation is laid almost entirely to the federal government.
The report goes on:
Federal immigration officers overseas fail to tell the prospective immigrant "that he will be expected to learn the language of the community where he settles, that unskilled jobs are likely to grow scarcer and that it would be advisable for him to consider the acquisition of some specific type of skill".
She said the federal government is also remiss in making available only a single man's allowance to unemployed men registered in program 5 (a plan in which immigrants can take English lessons)
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration who are supporting families in the old countries; another injustice is that no government subsidized scheme exists similar to program 5 for employed persons who wish to upgrade themselves.
"Recent arrivals feel they have been misled by Department of Immigration officials who did not make the true state of affairs known to them at the time of application. When they write home or return home, they tell their experiences to other prospective immigrants."
There are many interesting statements in this report, including a number of specific recommendations. Doubtless the minister has studied the report in detail, and I would ask him to comment on these recommendations in some detail when he replies.
Earlier, Mr. Chairman, I said that I was an unregenerate expansionist in immigration policy. Canada requires a much larger population. A policy of genuine national development involves population planning or at least the development of basic concepts as to the quality, optimum size and rate of growth of population.


Mr. Munro:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Richard Albert Bell: Yes.


John Carr Munro: Does the hon. gentleman agree that during the latter years of the administration of which he was a member and minister of citizenship and immigration a severe cut-back was made in the budget which did not allow any real promotional program in immigration? As a result there was a marked decrease in immigration into this country during the latter years of that administration.


Richard Albert Bell: I say to the hon.
gentleman that as soon as I took over the portfolio of immigration I sought to have a marked increased in the amount of money which was made available, and I succeeded in getting that marked increase. I started a genuine promotional program abroad which, by reason of the attitude of the labour department toward immigration, had been cut up to that time. It is just because of this that I am so concerned now at the marriage of labour and immigration. I saw at once that it was from the labour section that the influences against immigration were being exerted. That is why I have described the new department of manpower and immigration as a department warring within itself. At least there could be war among two cabinet ministers under previous circumstances, but now it is a war within the department.

June 3, 1966
S946	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The hon. gentleman has access to the facts, and I would say to him that he will find the complete situation described in the files of the department, showing the policy statement which was set forth for the year 1963 and for future years.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is this. I have expressed in previous times my view that we as a nation should set specific national objectives. What I have said many times is that one national objective should be, on a long-range basis, an inflow of immigrants of at least 1 per cent of population per annum, subject to adjustment within the limits of .75 to 1.25 per cent of population. If we establish a clear target such as this we can avoid the drawbacks of annual immigration planning. For under annual immigration planning, facilities cannot be maintained abroad, particularly in terms of trained staff to carry out the immigration programs. The stabilization of immigration policy will permit the maintenance of a trained immigration staff able to cope with reasonable problems and emergency situations.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
That is why I say this white paper is so much overdue. I appeal to the minister now to state policy forthwith and to proceed ahead with the greatest of vigour. The minister, I know, takes satisfaction in the rising immigration statistics. I take satisfaction in those also. I say to the hon. member for Hamilton East that this increase is the result of policies adopted in the autumn of 1962 and early winter of 1963. Governmental policy has really coasted since that time.
Sir, Canada needs more population. We need the cultural advantages of the best immigrants from other lands. We need the continuing stimulus to our economy. Let us go out to promote immigration. Canada has a wonderful way of life. Let us sell it with advantage to those who come to our shores. That advantage would as well accrue to us who are immigrants of an earlier generation.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express on behalf of our party satisfaction with the present government arrangement in which manpower and immigration are considered as two sides of one problem. I do not think we can have an intelligent immigration policy unless we have an intelligent manpower policy at the same time. It is understandable that we wish to increase the population of Canada. Certainly I have always been very much in favour of strong
CMr. Bell (Carleton).l

immigration policies for Canada. We must also realize that the long-range prospects and the success of any immigration policy depend on the institution of a manpower policy in this country that will assure the people who have become established here that there is no jeopardy to their interests when immigration is increased.
I do not think anybody's interest is jeopardized by increasing immigration. A great deal of misunderstanding has occurred about this in the past. By considering immigration and manpower as two aspects of the same problem, I think that most of the misunderstanding will disappear in future.
My remarks at this time are specifically directed to the department of manpower, particularly to the terms of reference of the minister in dealing with manpower and with specific reference to mobility. A few days ago I pointed out to the minister the criticism existing in this country about the segregation and discrimination that have arisen with regard to the government's policy of granting loans for mobility under some circumstances but not under other circumstances. It seems most unfair that there are not outright grants as opposed to loans.
As we have pointed out, many of the people who have to move from one place to another in search of a new occupation do not have sufficient funds at their disposal. They incur considerable costs in the process of dislocation. Even if they can obtain a loan, they are under a great strain to repay it in the future. I submit to the minister that this sort of thing is a most inhibiting factor in respect of mobility program. For the mobility program to be successful and realize its full potential assistance to anyone, after the resources of an area have become exhausted and nothing else can be done but move, must be given as expeditiously as possible. When circumstances arise in which mobility become a necessary answer the federal government should assume the cost rather than letting it fall upon the individual who in most cases is not responsible for the deteriorating economic circumstances of the particular region in which he lives.
Before the debate is over I hope the minister will indicate his feelings in this regard. I hope he will indicate that he intends to eliminate the loan system entirely and implement the mobility program on the basis of grants.
I pointed out the last time I spoke that the Economic Council has taken strong exception
June 3, 1966

to the loan aspect. It is also well known to the minister that the Canadian Labour Congress has taken exception to this policy also and has strongly endorsed a system of outright grants in order to ensure maximum mobility.
A mobility program is an absolute necessity in a country such as Canada. When an area develops economic difficulties I do not think that the government or anyone else should first say to the people there: Move out. This ought to be a last resort. Other choices should be explored. But when as a last resort we recognize that moving from an area is necessary we ought to do everything in our power to make the program respecting moving as fair as possible.
Not long ago we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Industry. I hope you will excuse reference to a previous debate, Mr. Chairman, but I am doing so because remarks were made that are applicable to what we are now discussing. In that debate the problem of area development was raised and the area development program was severely criticized. I believe that the area development program should be co-ordinated with manpower mobility.
It seems to me that not enough research and study have been undertaken into the inter-relationship of these two possible solutions to the problems of unemployment and area development. The government's mobility program has been subjected to criticism in some quarters. The province of Quebec is concerned about losing its people to other parts of Canada. That province, on the other hand, has been criticized for taking a parochial attitude on manpower policy. I think there is a lot to be said for both points of view. I am not trying to walk on both sides of the fence. I am trying to express the difficulties inherent in this particular problem.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
It is understandable that there is great reluctance in any area to lose its people because frequently the people who are the most mobile are the most highly trained and their departure represents a drain on the resources of an area and inhibits its future development. To say we can have an unrestricted national policy on mobility may be fine in terms of expressing the ideal, but in practice we may have to settle for something less and face up to the sociological factors that enter into the national mobility concept.
DEBATES	5947
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I suggest that the minister have his officials, in conjunction with the experts in the Department of Industry who are responsible for the area development program, explore the idea of growth centres within sociological regions in Canada to see whether a mobility program tied into them would offer a more fruitful avenue than does the blanket national mobility program.
I have met people who have been displaced from where their roots are. They face a most difficult problem when they are transposed from their own section of the country which has outlooks, attitudes and values that their new place of abode does not always quite respect. We may talk in terms of ultimate efficiency which may decree that mobility should be unrestricted. In economic terms this may be an unanswerable argument but in social terms it leaves a great deal to be desired. Until we come to the point where discrimination has ceased to have its effects, until we come to the point where we can plan much better for the reception of people from other areas, until we come to the point where opportunities have been more evenly distributed so that the transition from one area to another is not such a severe wrench, then we should explore a combination of area development centres of growth and internal mobility within the social fabric of such centres of growth.
The minister is not responsible for housing policy but much of his good work in manpower mobility and even in immigration may be frustrated by the extreme shortage of housing in those areas into which manpower is being directed or encouraged. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record of May 14 had an article headed, "Migrants Cannot Find Housing-No Problem Getting Jobs". That is typical of many areas where employment is much higher than it has been for many years. Housing is a serious problem and its shortage is one of the great inhibiting factors to mobility and immigration.
Even though an area may have a housing shortage people do not suddenly stop coming to it. They still come, but the deterioration that takes place in the community fabric leaves long and profound ill effects. I suggest that the minister use his influence among his colleagues to see that priorities are established for housing. Some of the responsibility rests with the municipalities and some with the provincial authorities, but this is always encountered in every area that the federal government enters.
June 3, 1966
5948	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The minister should do everything he can to encourage housing development, especially in areas that are rapidly acquiring more population. This is necessary in order to preserve the social values of a community and prevent the discord that accumulates because the newer arrivals are usually the worst housed. It is the migrants, those who come from other lands and other parts of Canada, who experience the greatest difficulty in finding suitable and adequate housing, and this creates social inequities within the community.
We shall always have to pay a price for mobility but the ill effects can be mitigated by advance planning. When it is known that migrants are to move into an area, a determined effort should be made to increase the area's stock of housing. I hope the minister will be able to deal with some of the questions I have raised.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I believe the setting up of a department of manpower is a very sound decision provided that the application of the theoretical potential reaches its objective. I agree with the preceding speaker who said that one of the greatest needs in Canada's labour force is mobility.
My own province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia are experiencing a desperate scarcity of technical manpower. The problem is so urgent that both provinces have virtually set up their own immigration recruitment programs in Europe. Yet there are still large numbers unemployed in eastern Canada, some 300,000 according to the latest statistics. The fact that this discrepancy exists in job opportunities is indicative of a great need for mobility in our work force.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
This is one of the challenges which I think faces the minister. I am sure we all respect his labour background. If ever there was a man on the ministerial benches with an opportunity to go out and do something to prove himself, in a sense he is that man. I am sure that members in all sections of the house wish him well, because the situation in Canada is one which certainly involves the entire economy and all the Canadian people. The decision to set up a specific department of manpower to deal with the aspect of labour would, on the surface at least, appear to be a very sound one.
Likewise I believe the decision to unite immigration and manpower under one departmental head is also sound, at least on a
[Mr Saltsman.]

theoretical basis. We have heard criticism of this decision by the hon. member for Carle-ton. I understand his concern in that regard, and the situation which existed prior to his assumption of the office of minister of citizenship and immigration is something we all recognize. Yet I do not see that the alternative which was provided by his own administration solved the problem either because immigration, as it has been handled for the past five, six, seven or eight years or even longer, has not been satisfactory.
With the tremendous potential in Canada we ought to have a much higher rate of immigration than at the present time. So far as our observations in this party are concerned, we do not see that there is any reason why Canada should not have a population increase of 5 per cent a year for the next 50 years. This would be a reasonable increase. If we are to supplement the normal growth rate, not only will we have to aim for an immigration flow of 1 per cent of our population but up to 1J per cent. Historically in the growth of our economy, the years when the growth of our nation has been most rapid invariably have been tied in with the years which showed the greatest immigration inflow. If we are to continue to occupy Canada and develop the growth which Canada should have, I think it is logical to suggest we must have a more steady, continuous and higher immigration inflow than we have had for the last ten years.
In respect of our labour problem as it relates to our immigration, I would hope that the minister would get out and put his shoul-er to the wheel and at the same time clear away some of the bureaucratic obstruction which he faces. I would hope that he would move ahead and really do a job for the nation. The challenge is there. I say to the minister that what is needed at the present time is less bureaucracy and more immigrants. Also, I do not believe we will get a clear perspective of what needs to be done until the white paper is brought down and is given a very careful and thorough study, and until a study is made of the application of those things in it which relate both to the department of manpower and immigration.
Sometimes I find myself becoming very critical of the administration of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. As members of parliament we are subject to all the pressures which come from those who wish to bring into this country their own families and their own friends. I really do not
June 3, 1966

think there is anything wrong with this type of immigrant because he has the stability of his relationship to someone here in this country which allows him to become more easily acclimatized. So long as these are the type of immigrant who will be able to fit into the skilled or semi-skilled job opportunity fields, this is something we should encourage.
I believe that one of the greatest obstacles in the whole problem of immigration, not just at the present time but for the past number of years, is the maze of bureaucracy which has developed in the selection of immigrants under successive governments. Again I think this is a challenge which rests upon the minister who comes to his position fresh from his experience in the field of labour and certainly with a familiarity with the employment problems we face and the needs facing us in respect of readjustment of the entire economic picture. We in this party are willing to give the minister a fair try and every bit of co-operation we can. I must say, however, that we are going to be watching critically what happens, because what has been the case is not good enough for the future.
So far as job opportunities are concerned, we in Canada stand in a very unique position. We are just moving into the era of industrialization in our country, following the pattern of many other countries in this regard. Because we are just moving into it I do not think the effects of automation really will have an adverse reaction on the over-all picture of employment in our country in our lifetime. The real problems which will come with automation and cybernetics will affect the older industrial nations more severely and critically than Canada. Retraining and readjustment to job opportunities on the part of industry is something which is going to be much less acute for us than it will be, for example, in Great Britain, in the more industrialized European countries or in Japan for that matter. On that basis, not only must we be working toward a 5 per cent population increase per year, which I think is a reason-ble objective, but also a corresponding growth in the economy as well. I also think it is quite a reasonable objective to say that along with the 5 per cent increase in population we should expect a 10 per cent annual increase in the gross national product, because the two will go together hand in hand.
I believe one of the problems with which Canadians are concerned at the present time is the fact that we lack leadership at the 23033-3771
DEBATES	5949
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration federal level. We view with concern the fact that in almost every instance there has been stronger leadership and stronger administration at the provincial level than we have had at the federal level. We realize we must have strong leadership at all levels. I am concerned though that some of the provinces have practically had to develop their own immigration policies and have had to go out and develop their own trade policies. This is not good. There must be leadership from the federal government. This has been necessary as things have been but it is not ideal so far as the future is concerned.
I return therefore to the premise that the minister has a tremendous opportunity and challenge before him to get out and give leadership at the immigration and manpower levels which not only will make his own department vibrant and strong but in a very major way will affect the whole matter of unity and respect for the federal government which most Canadians are looking for at the present time.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I noticed in going over the estimates that there is what I hope is a trend toward improving the administration of our immigration services. There is a marked decrease in the number of personnel in some of the technical and administrative classifications at the lower middle salary range and a marked increase in the number at the upper middle range. Likewise there has been a greater increase in immigration officers this year compared with last, and I hope that this is a sign of an attempt to give more effective and efficient administration particularly in relation to immigration officers overseas.
I have in mind particularly Hong Kong. I know that the situation there has been the subject of criticism for a number of years. The truth of the matter is that the staff in Hong Kong is just not able to cope with the situation there. While that is a very peculiar situation the department must recognize that it cannot expect to have efficiency there in breaking down some of the problems that exist so far as administration is concerned unless there is an adequate number of officers of the proper level and standard to do the job.
I will not mention specific cases, although I could cite a number in respect of which it has been almost impossible to render the type of service an immigration officer should because of the pressure of work and shortage of staff. I hope also that immigration offices in Europe.-
June 3, 1966
5950	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration will be expanded to meet the needs there, that the number of reports that have been adverse in so far as attracting immigrants is concerned will be less and that there will be a better public image created in respect of job opportunities and the ability of the Canadian economy to absorb immigrants than has been the case in Europe during the last several years.
I do not intend to say any more at the present time except to assure the minister again that he will receive all possible cooperation from us as long as he is moving toward doing something about the problems that exist. It is up to him to prove that the union of manpower and immigration under one ministerial head is a good thing. I urge upon him the necessity of bringing out a white paper in the immediate future and getting on with the new immigration policy that has been talked about in every Speech from the Throne in the past three years since the present government took office.
We appreciate the remarks the minister has made and hope he will elaborate on them a little more before the estimates of his department are completed.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, there are three points in respect of which I should like to comment while we are discussing vote No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The first point I wish to make is more in the nature of a question than a comment. I have raised this point on two or three occasions in the past but nothing has been done about it in spite of promises contained annually in Speeches from the Throne. It has to do with proposed amendments to the "Canadian Citizenship Act which will ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born."
The party sitting to the right of Mr. Speaker has been in power for a little better than three years, since April of 1963, during which time we have had four ministers of immigration. When you ask why the minister does not do something about the promises contained in Speeches from the Throne to the effect that an amendment will be made to the citizenship act the answer is always that the minister was not in office when the promises were made. It seems that in order to avoid putting into effect the promises contained in the Speeches from the Throne, the government changes the minister. I do not think that is good enough, because a Speech from the Throne is read by the Governor General


who has been the same honourable gentleman since this party came into power.
In the riding that has been good enough to elect me to parliament there is located the town of Weston with a population of about 10,000. Very shortly after my election to parliament I received an urgent letter from Canadian citizens of Italian birth who were greatly exorcised over the fact that they had gone to Italy for a visit and because of the cost of living there and the number of relatives they had in Italy had stayed for a number of years. They understood that before coming back to Canada they had to have their passports validated, but when they sent their passports to the Canadian embassy in Rome they were informed they had lost their Canadian citizenship because they had stayed out of Canada for so many years during which time their passports had not been validated. These people were desperate because they had Canadian-born sons and daughters in this country and wished to return. They had renounced their Italian citizenship in favour of Canadian citizenship and were glad to have done so. They were informed by the Canadian embassy that they had forfeited their Canadian citizenship because they had stayed out of Canada for a certain length of time.
I immediately took the matter up with the minister of immigration and I am happy to say that these people received the utmost co-operation and their passports were validated, re-establishing them once again as Canadian citizens.
This episode occurred two or three years ago at a time when a tremendous decision was rendered unanimously by the supreme court of the United States whereby a German born wife of a United States citizen, who had been a member of the United States armed forces in Germany when he married, could not lose her citizenship as a result of the soldier-husband and wife returning to Germany after the war to the village or town in which his wife was born and raised. The United States supreme court ruled that this German native born citizen, having renounced her German citizenship and accepted United States citizenship, could not be deprived of her United States citizenship unless she herself voluntarily renounced it in favour of citizenship of another country. That was a tremendous decision rendered unanimously, and it represents a mountain peak of freedom for United States citizens.
June 3, 1966	COMMONS
I have been pressing this government, as have other hon. members, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act so that the citizens of this country who have adopted this country as their homeland cannot be deprived of their citizenship except as a result of a voluntary act of their own. This government promised to do something in this regard in January, February, April and May, and if it stays in power long enough I suppose it will make the same promise in all 12 months of the year. We received a promise in the Speech from the Throne of Thursday, May 16, 1963 stating that:
-a change in the Canadian Citizenship Act will be proposed to ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born.
Then on Tuesday, February 18, 1964 the Speech from the Throne contained this promise:
You will be asked to consider amendments to the Citizenship Act which will ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born.
Those are very nice words and are exactly the same as the ones used before. However, nothing was done.
Then in the Speech from the Throne read on Monday, April 5, 1965, for the third time we were given the assurance that something was going to be done in the following words:
A measure will be placed before you to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, particularly in order to ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were bom.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
That is thrice on that one; but that is not sufficient to really let you know that the government means it. We repeated the statement on January 18, 1966, and we have this sentence in the Speech from the Throne:
My government will propose legislation to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, in order to ensure equality of rights for all citizens.
Well, there is one thing about it; the determination is exactly the same as when it was first stated, but the performance has certainly been woefully lacking. At one time when I raised this point as to why no action was taken following all these wordy promises, I was told that there was a hold-up in the amendments because they were waiting for a court decision with respect to those people of Dutch extraction who were refusing to swear by the Bible. That case went through the courts and a decision has been rendered, so that excuse is out the window.
DEBATES	5951
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I have been told that the amendments are ready; they have been prepared and the regulations are drawn up. I would like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-I know this is his first house, but he is, after all, a successor in a line of Liberal ministers of citizenship and immigration- when we might expect to have this measure placed before us that will amend the Canadian Citizenship Act, particularly in order to ensure full equality of rights for all Canadian citizens wherever they were born.


Richard Albert Bell: When, oh when?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Well, we have had four promises. I do not know, but I would like to think that the fourth time we might be able to get some action.


Mr. Rynard:: Three and out.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I would like to return to another subject which I discussed at some length a week ago today. I refer to the question of citizenship. I want to return to it this afternoon when we are discussing these estimates because of the very interesting question that was asked of me by the hon. member for Lotbiniere last Friday afternoon. I was questioning why it was that people are allowed to accept honours, decorations and awards from the King of Greece, the government of France, the government of the Netherlands, the government of Belgium and the government of Italy, but a Canadian citizen cannot accept an honour from the Queen of Canada, who is also the Queen of Great Britain.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for York-Humber, but he is now beginning to speak about a topic concerning the acceptance by Canadians of decorations from different countries throughout the world and I just want to ask the hon. member whether he sees any relevancy in this topic when we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had explained myself fully. I am speaking on citizenship and I am coming to the subject of the citizenship of a native born Canadian who, because the Queen of Canada gave him a title, is no longer a Canadian citizen. I wish to raise some questions on this matter and particularly to reiterate the question raised by the member for Lotbiniere last Friday afternoon. At that time the hon. member-I
5952	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration am sorry he is not here today; I was looking for him yesterday-asked this question of me:
Is the hon. member aware of the fact that, in order to become right honourable, that is more honourable, it is necessary to become a member of the privy council of England? Does he not think that this is a bondage, since one must become a member of the privy council of a different government in order to become right honourable? Would he deem it advisable to change such a situation, since the Queen of England is also the Queen of Canada? We could become right honourable by becoming members of this privy council of Canada.
I was referring to Lord Thomson of Fleet, who has lost his Canadian citizenship, I say temporarily because his citizenship should be restored to him by the Canadian cabinet. The Nickle resolution states that titles should not be conferred on Canadian citizens ordinarily resident or domiciled in Canada, and heaven knows Lord Thomson is not ordinarily resident or domiciled in Canada. But when the member for Lotbiniere asked the question last Friday he set up a chain of thought that some of us have been developing throughout the week.
It comes to this. How is it that certain prominent Canadians can be sworn into the privy council of, shall I say, a foreign government and not lose their Canadian citizenship, whereas if another Canadian citizen is sworn into the parliament of the same foreign country he loses his Canadian citizenship? How is it possible for a Canadian citizen to be honoured by a foreign government, shall I say, and then return with the title of "right honourable"? I do not need to name those who carry the title of "right honourable" around these halls or in this Dominion of Canada; there are a few of them. But the question that comes up is: If Lord Thomson could not become a member of the British House of Lords without the recommendation of the cabinet of Canada to the Queen of Canada, or the recommendation of the government of Great Britain to the Queen of Great Britain, who recommends those Canadian citizens who wind up with the title of "right honourable"? Does the Queen reach out and say to certain Canadians, "Of my own volition I give you the courtesy title of right honourable"?
Her Majesty could not do that to Mr. Roy Thomson, a native born Canadian from Toronto. She was told, "You cannot honour him without a recommendation from the cabinet of the section of the Commonwealth of which he is a citizen". And since no such recommendation came forward from Canada he
DEBATES	June 3, 1966
secured a recommendation from another section of the Commonwealth, but still remains a British subject and still remains Toronto born, but is no longer a citizen of Canada. If Lord Thomson of Fleet lost his Canadian citizenship because of his desire to accept a title from the Queen of Canada or the Queen of Great Britain, whichever you want to call her-she is one and the same person-how is it that other Canadians are honoured by the Queen, we are told, without anything happening to their Canadian citizenship? It is a mighty fine distinction, if you ask me, between "right honourable" and a knighthood, a baronetcy or a title in the nobility. But the Nickle resolution distinctly reads:
Most Gracious Sovereign.
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased:
(a) To refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada-
Is "right honourable" a titular distinction, or is it not a titular distinction? If it is a titular distinction it is illegal, under the Nickle resolution. If it is a titular distinction, those who hold it should yield their Canadian citizenship in the same manner as Roy Thomson was forced to voluntarily give up his Canadian citizenship in order to accept a title in the nobility of Great Britain. It is an angle that I think the minister of citizenship should follow through, and se why it is that we have right honourables in Canada who are still considered Canadian citizens, but when you have a Toronto-born Canadian like Roy Thomson enjoying the title and perquisites of Lord Thomson of Fleet, he is no longer a Canadian citizen.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It looks very much to me as though what is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. You will be interested to look up in the Oxford dictionary-I am referring to the unabridged edition, not the concise edition-the definition of that word "titular". If you want to look it up, O.K., but I can save you a little time by telling you that it reads, "not of reality; empty". That means that this Nickle resolution might well read: "Ask the King to refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or empty distinction upon any of your subjects..." However, I have just drawn your attention to the definition which you will find in the Oxford unabridged dictionary. If the Minister of Citizenship and

June 3, 1966

Immigration would devote some attention to that matter, I would be very happy to hear his findings as I believe that Roy Thomson, a native born Canadian, should be given back his citizenship because of the honour and distinction he has brought to himself and to the country.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that we are dealing with Item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. My next remarks can either come under vote 1 dealing with the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker, or under vote 15 under which necessary funds are to be advanced for technical and vocational training. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to a discussion that was held in this house on May 18 and 19 of this year when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was piloting through the house a resolution providing for allowances to persons being trained in technical and vocational schools. At that time I spoke on behalf of the housewives who are either training or retraining as nurses between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. At that time I referred directly to the Quo Vadis School of Nursing in Toronto. Assistance to this school could come under the promotion of a program for employment of the older worker because it trains housewives who have raised their families to school age and are more or less unemployed. I hope housewives will forgive me for saying they are more or less unemployed; I know how busy they are. These women who have their children in school believe they have the time in which to take a course for graduate nurses such as is offered by the Quo Vadis School.
I was particularly interested in the statement made by the minister on May 18, 1966, at page 5278 of Hansard, that the allowances for people taking training could be as high as $90 a week. Because of those facts I queried whether he could not include schools of nursing such as the Quo Vadis School in the proposed vocational and technical training assistance act. When I pointed out to him that there were empty wards in the hospitals because of the lack of nurses and that the greatest problem facing the medical hospital world today is the shortage of nurses, he gave me this answer on May 19, as reported at page 5330 of Hansard:
Several members said that we should put schools of nursing on the same footing. I think that the Quo Vadis School of Nursing which was mentioned is an extremely valuable school and I think
DEBATES	5953
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration that it can get a grant through the Department of National Health and Welfare, something we cannot do through a system of vocational teaching. I was asked to give that matter some consideration and I certainly will.
On Tuesday morning of this week I had the privilege of meeting Miss Mackenzie, the principal of the Quo Vadis School of Nursing, and Monsignor O'Meara, an official of the school and vice chairman of the Ontario Hospital Services Commission. I also met some of the instructors of that school. I asked them what assistance they were receiving through the Department of National Health and Welfare. They informed me that the only assistance which these housewives who are training as graduate nurses are receiving from the federal department is the reimbursement of half their travelling expenses. You can imagine what a vast sum of money that is, when their travelling expenses consist either of carfare in the city of Toronto or a mileage allowance on automobiles, because all these housewives are living in Toronto where they are raising their families in addition to taking the course at the Quo Vadis School of Nursing.
Since these housewives are being retrained, I would urge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to consider these student nurses whose ages range from 30 to 50 and who are therefore eligible for assistance under the program for the employment of the older worker. I would ask the minister that assistance which will be offered to students in vocational and technical schools be extended to schools of nursing which fall either under the provincial departments of health or under the departments of education. We need nurses more than we need any other class of workers in Canada at this time.
Since we have been told by Miss MacKenzie and Monsignor O'Meara that the only contribution which the Department of National Health and Welfare is making to the Qua Vadis School of Nursing at this time is one half of their travelling expenses, which is carfare, I would ask you to consider this matter very seriously and make certain that such schools as the Quo Vadis School of Nursing receive assistance.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he not consider that grants to homes for nurses in training, since this is in the field of education, might be dealt with by an amendment to the National Housing Act rather than by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?
June 3, 1966
5954	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I regret very much that I have not made myself clear, or else the hon. member does not know what I am talking about, because the Quo Vadis School of Nursing has no residences. The students of that school are all married women who live at home and raise their families. They send their children to school, prepare their lunches and then go to the school of nursing. They then try to get back home at five o'clock in order to prepare a hot dinner for their husbands and children. They do this five days a week.
I would say this to the minister, and I mean every word of it, that the Quo Vadis School of Nursing and similar schools of nursing will accept all the grants you wish to give them, provided you do not ask them to build residences because they do not need them. They would like to have assistance in the way of some sustenance for these student nurses who are training to become graduate nurses.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I was greatly taken with the colourful metaphor used by the hon. member for Carleton when he opened the debate for our side. In dealing with the formation of this department he referred to the unconsummated marriage. I simply want to extend that one step further, but before doing so may I say to the minister that, having in mind his record in the house since he has been here, I am quite confident there will not be too much difficulty in passing these estimates although, as he said, there has been no issue of this marriage. However, even if we take into consideration the notorious indecisiveness of the government, its inaction, its accident proneness and its inability to act, we must assume that in a year's time even this government will probably have given birth to some issue. At that time the minister will be judged on the basis of what took place during that year.
There have been four ministers in the department over a recent period of time. In a year's time the present minister will have held office for a year and he will not have had four fathers from which to hide the paternity of the child, if it should be suffering from economic thalidomide or mental or physical retardation-which I hope it will not.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very briefly about this new department. After rereading in Hansard what I had said the other day when the bill was being debated, I thought I was a little grudging at that time in my attempt to praise the government for the


use of the words "the utilization of manpower resources in their fullest sense". So far as the generality is concerned, as I said before, I do not thing too much of it. Here was the single nugget of gold in a barrel of sand. I hope the minister will not hesitate to make the fullest use of the powers which the house has given him in that regard. This is all I want to say in connection with that aspect.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I have a few comments to add to what was said by the hon. member for Carleton and other hon. members with regard to the question of immigration. I also consider myself a complete expansionist, coming as I do from the part of the country which I have the honour to represent. The settlement of Canada took place at a time when this country did not have the social welfare programs that it has today. We had, therefore, two stools on which to found our progress in the west and in the north. In addition there was the movement of people from east to west who were seeking new homes in new areas. Today this latter movement is not available, or at least only to a limited extent. The social welfare programs we have today have a tendency to keep people where they are. People are provided with some form of assistance to aid them in their attempts to achieve a better life. This has had the effect of artificially slowing down the normal movement which you might expect in a country such as Canada, with wide open areas in the west and in the north. Then, too, the designated area program, which we were discussing a while ago, has had a similar effect in preventing the normal movement of capital which could develop the resources of the west and the north.
Consequently we have to look to immigration, I am afraid, for this development. On the basis of what we have seen in the last few years the prospects do not look too bright. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we in the north country are not to be condemned in perpetuity to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, that is to say, to see the resources which we have there being hauled away to be processed. I think this is bad for two reasons. It is bad for us because we need the development, and it is bad for the country. We have a small population, largely concentrated in one or two areas, and the problems of transportation and communication place a tremendously heavy burden on the taxpayers of Canada which must be kept in mind
June 3, 1366

specifically in our efforts to achieve progress. If we hope to increase the population and develop our resources, we must look to immigration. For this reason, I urge the minister, in his consideration of this particular aspect of his responsibility, to be guided by the necessity of ensuring that the growth of this country is a proper and normal one. I feel confident he will have support from all sides of the house in his efforts in this respect. I can assure him he will have my support.
I should like to deal briefly with another aspect of the question of immigration. The hon. member for Carleton spoke of the Sedgwick report and the white paper. I want to urge the minister now to give consideration to a suggestion I am going to make to him. When we are debating these estimates we are, of course, limited as to time under the new rules. We could deal to a considerable extent with the provisions of the Sedgwick report and the general question of an immigration white paper. However, I would urge the minister, when he brings down the white paper, to give the house ample notice and collaborate with the house leaders to obtain a reasonable period of time for discussion of the white paper and the more important aspects of the Sedgwick report. I think it would be most unfair, having in mind the circumstances which exist now, to expect the members of the committee to deal in detail with these two matters, particularly in the light of the fact we do not have the white paper before us. I hope the minister, before his estimates are completed, will give some thought to this suggestion and indicate that he will seek the agreement of the house leaders to have a proper discussion of these issues.
Having said that, I should like to deal briefly with the Sedgwick report. It is a most remarkable document. There are parts of it with which I agree and parts of it with which I disagree. I am talking about part II, of course. There are many departures from the procedures and regulations of the past. For example, there is the question of the deportation of those people who have acquired permanent status in Canada but who are not citizens. This is something which I feel is long overdue for consideration. The proposal to establish an independent tribunal or appeal board whose decisions are not subject to ministerial review I must say appeals to me. Having in mind my experience at the present time-

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Is the hon. member advocating a complete abolition of ministerial discretion? In that respect, does he differ from his colleague, the hon. member for Carleton, and is he advocating the complete abolition of ministerial discretion?


Gerald William Baldwin: In so far as the tribunal is concerned, I would agree with Mr. Sedgwick that it should be independent. It should be a court of record with the right of appeal. On an issue of this kind we, in this party, seem to blossom out with a reasonable amount of disagreement in our views, which is something I would strongly recommend to hon. members on the other side. I think it would take them a lot further than they have gone in the past.
In so far as ministerial discretion is concerned, I believe there should be some in certain aspects. However, in so far as the board itself is concerned, I feel there should not be any. These are all very interesting considerations which should be discussed in great detail. I hope time will be made available for that purpose.
In so far as the question of security is concerned, which is also discussed by Mr. Sedgwick, I think it is proper at this time to make a few comments. In his report at page 16, Mr. Sedgwick says something with which we can all agree. He says that the difficulty arises in that the gathering of security information is an extremely delicate and sensitive process. We have seen an illustration of that fact in the last few weeks, which underlines the accuracy of that statement.
Now, I should like to make one comment on a suggestion which I made before with regard to security and the right of those people who are affected to make a reply to the charges, particularly as this relates to the question of immigration. There was a statement made on this question with which I thoroughly agreed at the time, and this statement appears at page 4043 of Hansard for October 25, 1963:
First, the government must ensure the physical safety of the secret, classified information for which it is responsible by devising effective regulations for its proper handling and proper storage. However, physical security is in itself of little use without the added assurance that the people handling the material in question are people in whom government can have full confidence . . .
June 3, 1966

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
If our security policies ignored, or did not take sufficiently into account, the basic rights of the individual, they could operate not to defend but to destroy the liberties which are our first concern. The reconciliation of these competing responsibilities and these competing obligations is not easy.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
And again:
The security measures which have been developed here in Canada, through sometimes bitter experience, are intended to be preventive and not punitive.
These words were uttered by the Prime Minister at the time when we were debating the question of general procedure. If we were debating the matter in another context I would have a lot to say about these words and the extent to which they have been lived up to. But in their general application I accept them, as I think do most hon. members of the house. This is what we should set up for ourselves. This should be our objective. We should decide how we can relate it to the very difficult and sensitive question of security procedures in immigration problems.
I should like to make this recommendation to the minister, after having a great deal of experience not only as a member who has been dealing with cases submitted to me but in my professional capacity, knowing of hundreds and hundreds of prospective immigrants who have come to Canada, sought citizenship, been subjected to the procedures of the government and have had imposed upon them hardships wrought by our security measures.
I think it is wrong for any person who is deprived of his rights not to be given some opportunity to answer allegations which are made against him. I say that with full recognition of the fact that it might not be possible to confront the accused with his accuser. It might not be possible to disclose sources of information, and in certain cases that should not be allowed. But I see no reason why some summaries of statements which have been made, compiled in such a way as not to disclose the names of the people who have given the information, information oftentimes second and third hand, information which a court of law would never receive under any circumstances, should not be made available either to the immigrant involved- particularly in citizenship cases-or to people who may well be subject to deportation.
This will provide an opportunity for them to answer the statements, and they would know in respect of which charges their rights and liberties are being threatened. Even if the person concerned or those who represent

him were not able to cross-examine on those statements, at least the appeal tribunal, which might have the final decision to make with respect to the rights which are being threatened, would have the statements before them. But to accept unchallenged evidence of this kind is, I suggest, repugnant to any democratic institution and to people who profess that way of life.
I suggest to the minister that this matter should be one of his greatest concerns. The hon. member for Carleton told us in the strongest possible terms of his great anxiety when he held the position now occupied by the minister in matters of this kind. I know the hon. member for Carleton, and I know the extent to which there were so many agonizing decisions he was called upon to make, as will the minister. I think that some procedure must be devised whereby people whose rights are threatened are no longer put into the position of not knowing what statements are made against them; but without impairing security procedures-which I suggest is possible-they should directly or indirectly be given the right to answer such charges.


Mr. Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Chairman, my remarks are addressed to the minister of immigration, but perhaps he can discuss the point I am going to raise with his colleague the minister of external affairs and also the minister of manpower. My intervention is prompted by the problem created by Canadian labour crossing the border to work, and being subject to the military draft while working there with a visa.
I have a clipping from the Wolseley News of Saskatchewan dated April 20, 1966, headlined "Local Boy 'Shanghaied'". Having read this, one thing which the minister could do is at least to amend the agreements in this respect which exist between the two countries. I imagine Canadians undergoing this treatment do not like it, and if we gave the same treatment to our friends from the south who come to Canada perhaps they would not like it either.
This article reads as follows:
As the result of a court case in a city in the northern States, a Wolseley boy has been forced to enlist in the American army. This lad accepted employment and went to the States last fall, under a working visa, not knowing he was eligible for the U.S. draft. When he received a draft call in February this year, he turned in his visa and returned to Canada, where he had since been working. Ten days ago he made a return trip to visit a friend in the States, and on crossing the border was
June 3. 1966

arrested by U.S. federal authorities, and was released on $2,500 bail being posted by a U.S. friend. He appeared in court on Monday morning of last week, charged with "desertion". He was sentenced to "two to five years in prison"-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this is hardly an immigration matter.


Raymond Langlois: It might not be an immigration matter directly; I said that at the beginning of my remarks. The matter could come under manpower, but it certainly comes under human rights and Canadian citizenship, because this man was a Canadian when he was caught at the U.S. border.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this is a matter for discussion on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


Raymond Langlois: I also stated that, Mr. Chairman; and I have had experience in the past of being transferred from one department to another even when two departments seemed to be involved. However, I am just about through with this matter; I just want to give the committee the result. This man was sentenced to two to five years in prison, plus $10,000 fine, or enlistment in the U.S. army. That was quite a choice he was given.
I suggest that somebody should look into this question. The United States monopoly :ontrols practically everything which we have in Canada which is of major value -natural resources, industry and distribution, merchandising and everything else. The United States finger is everywhere. Possibly the latest case of drafting young Canadians is their way of controlling our human resources. They may talk about their good neighbours to the north, but are they not now replacing the dove of peace with the bald-headed eagle?
I would ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to consult with his colleague the minister of external affairs to see what can be done about this question. I know the same thing has happened to constituents of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and he will be taking the matter up. This is not an isolated case.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
To return to the manpower situation in my region, I do not know how many families and young men have had to find work across the border as a result of the situation which the minister of manpower knows was brought about by the fusion of the local asbestos 23033-3781
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration mines. Hundreds of people left to go to the-United States. They were nearly all subjected to this treatment. I think the minister should consult with his colleague from the Department of External Affairs so that there could be some agreement between the two governments. If a young man had been working in the United States, and had returned to Canada, then if he were to return again to the United States, he might be-I am not saying he would be-subject to the draft. Such a young man might only have been working for five or six months in the United States before coming back to Canada.
I think the matters that I have raised should be looked into. If any change is to be made in protocol, I should appreciate the minister of manpower's consulting with the Secretary of State for External Affairs in order that the situation may be rectified.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity I have of dealing briefly with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Last year I missed my opportunity, owing to an unavoidable absence from the House of Commons. At the outset I want to thank the minister for his efforts, in the: Edmonton area, in connection with a Greek immigration case. I want to thank him in the house for doing what he did on behalf of a particular man.
The hon. member for Carleton dealt very thoroughly with what he called certain anomalies in the Canadian Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act. This afternoon I want to deal with specifics.
First of all I should like to know if the minister would take it upon himself to answer some of the questions I wish to pose. Is he aware, first of all, of the following situation: When certain Chinese applicants in Hong Kong apply for admission to Canada because they are sponsored and have job opportunities in Canada, when it appears they are unable to meet specific immigration requirements they are told that as they cannot speak English they are not admissible to Canada.
For a number of years I have paid a good deal of attention to the Canadian Citizenship Act and the Immigration Act. At no time was I able to determine from reading those acts that knowledge of the English language was a criterion for admission.
My second question, for which I have substantiating documentation, is this: Is the minister aware that, after having made certain statements, certain Canadian citizens of
June 3, 1966
5958	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Chinese origin, upon interview with immigration officials in a given city where those citizens have been inquiring about the possibility of being able to sponsor certain relatives from in or around Hong Kong, are told outright by immigration officials that they are lying, and that the people in question in Hong Kong, the parties before the immigration official, are not, in fact, relatives.
If this is true, may I suggest that no matter what the authority of an official may be, no official within the department at the local level has the right to accuse any citizen of Canada of outright lying, without sufficient proof. I pose this question to the minister in the hope that he will look into the matter and see that it is not repeated.
The other matter I wish to bring to the minister's attention is of some concern to people coming from countries behind the iron curtain who wish to sponsor relatives or visitors to this country. I have noticed on a number of occasions that the motives imputed to those persons who come from behind the iron curtain and who wish to sponsor relatives or visitors, have been predetermined by the officials in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Let me cite one example. An elderly couple with no family of their own in the city of Edmonton, who own a dry cleaning business and are well able to afford an all-expenses-paid first class trip from Russia to Canada for a nephew of theirs, tried to obtain permission to have that nephew admitted to Canada for a six months stay. The officials of the department in Edmonton told these people that their motive for bringing their nephew to Canada was not to have him visit, but rather to bring him into the country so that they might apply to the department after he was here for him to remain permanently. This is another instance of the officials of the department predetermining in their own minds reasons why people wish to visit Canada. I think this sort of thing is quite wrong.
Another point I wish to bring to the minister's attention is the method of examining intended immigrants to Canada. I have referred to this on a number of occasions in the past. I refer specifically once again to a case in Edmonton. A young school teacher from that city, visiting France four or five years ago, met and married a young Polish emigrant who at that time resided in Paris. She married him without knowing that she could not bring him back to Canada unless he


complied with certain immigration requirements.
Upon investigating this man's background-and I repeat this for the minister's benefit-it was determined that his family in the past had been connected with the communist party behind the iron curtain. Although I have no evidence to substantiate my argument, I say this: The young man swears that in his early years he never had anything to do with the communist party, and in fact that the party was one of the reasons he left his country and resided in France. He is a qualified engineer, married to a Canadian citizen. Surely, Mr. Chairman, unless there is absolute proof that this man was connected with a government espousing beliefs foreign to ours there is no reason why the woman in question should have her husband living in Paris while she, with her two children, lives and teaches in Edmonton, just because certain security information indicates that her husband is not a desirable Canadian.
I know the case is now before the minister. Appeals have been launched through religious organizations in the city of Edmonton for the minister to reconsider the grounds for the refusal of this application. If the minister does not mind, I shall privately and confidentially communicate with him at a later date, to bring this matter again to his attention.
I have also brought this matter up on several occasions: Is it not possible for immigration officials in Ottawa to communicate with their counterparts in countries behind the iron curtain. Would it not be possible to staff our embassies with the people necessary to process the applications for admission to Canada of people from behind the iron curtain?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The problem always seems to be to get clearance for departure of persons from behind the iron curtain. In recent years our immigration laws have been designed to reunite families. Many people still have relatives living in iron curtain countries, and I am looking for action to expedite family reunions. I hope the minister will look at this aspect of the matter again.
With respect to manpower, it is not so long ago since it was relatively easy for an immigrant to gain admission to Canada, provided he was destined for agricultural employment in western Canada. Many Dutch people came to Canada specifically for employment in rural areas of western Canada, for periods of two years each, but the law with respect to
June 3, 1966	COMMONS
that was never really enforced. Many of the people who came left farm work and went to find work in our cities.
I ask, would it not be advisable for the government to consider a formula by which people from almost any country in the world could gain admission to Canada, provided they were specifically fitted for agricultural employment or wished to establish themselves in the agricultural industry? I can see little wrong with such a proposal. My grandfather came here in the 1880's, destined for a homestead in the wilderness, and I know there are many people in many parts of the world who would be happy to come to Canada if they thought they had a future in agricultural areas.
While the hon. member for Carleton was speaking this afternoon a government supporter interjected that not much was done with respect to changes in the Immigration Act during the period that the party to which I have the honour to belong was in power. I would remind the minister that when I first came here in 1958 I did not appreciate the discriminatory (a) (b) (c) and (d) portions of the Immigration Act, and since that time they have been eliminated, bringing equality to our immigration laws. I am sure the minister will endeavour to bring further equality to them.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, to situate my remarks I would like to say two things. First,
I believe in the necessity of immigration in progressive countries like Canada. I speak of selective immigration because, obviously, we need skilled manpower to help us develop all the potentials of our economy. Immigration will also bring us consumers, a valuable factor for our trade, and specialists in all sorts of fields.
The second remark, and I speak from experience, is that the minister now at the head of this department seems to me especially well qualified. I quote a case so as to prove that I am not simply doing an exercise in meaningless compliments.
I am among those who have to write every now and then to the minister for all sorts of requests. I remember a case concerning immigrants. I admit frankly, Mr. Chairman, that after having written to the minister, I forgot my request. But he wrote me three or four times to tell me that he was following up the case of my fellow-citizen and that, finally, he had found a solution.
DEBATES	5959
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
For a new minister who, as a new member, must familiarize himself with all the complex parliamentary procedure and moreover, find in his department a "follow-up system"-to use a phrase not to be found in Bossuet-that means he is efficient and will render excellent services. I say that to situate the atmosphere of my remarks.
I listened to what has been said during the past few hours. Mention has been made of the Sedgwick report, that you have studied-it would be redundant, I think, to analyse it and make recommendations to the minister, because I think it has been studied and that his officials have analysed it and will use it to make proper recommendations.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) which were not always in order but to which one can refer because they were made during the debate.
When I think of the member for York-Humber, Mr. Chairman, a French speaking person like me is reminded of a "stormy petrel", a name I checked many times in the dictionary and which, in my opinion, describes very well the character of this member whom I would see better among the independents than among the Liberals, judging by the positions he takes in this house, except that there are enough differences of opinion among the independents now, so that we do not wish a third one.
I would like anyhow to point out that I have sentimental ties with the member for York-Humber because his great-grandfather is buried in the Trois-Rivieres cemetery. This may be partially the reason for his individualistic dispositions and Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed, even if I am out of order, to make this last remark about him. I should like the hon. member for York-Humber to come and stay in our riding for a few months to complete his knowledge as to what must be true Canadianism.
His intervention for Sir Thomson of Fleet, for instance, is understandable, in view of the loyalty he owes him of course-Sir Thomson put up with him for so many years-that he should at least support him in this house, even if we do not understand exactly the reason why. I think that Sir Thomson could not care less about the supreme distinction to be still recognized as a Canadian citizen after all the honours conferred upon him during the last few years.
June 3, 1966
5960	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I am coming to my point on immigration. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. minister-I apologize for this digression-who certainly agreed with me, but I should like to emphasize this point-if his department is taking measures to synchronize its action toward a selective immigration with what the province of Quebec intends to do? It is setting up its own department of immigration.
I should like the whole house to understand me well. I do not advocate this kind of emulation between French speaking immigrants and English speaking or other immigrants.
I want it clearly understood that if it is true that in this country there are two elements; two main ethnic groups, the group which I represent, that is the French speaking group, would like very much to survive not only through the battle of the cradles but also through a selective and maybe an immigration proportionate to the size of our ethnic group.
It is a well-known fact, for instance, Mr. Chairman, that our country is going to lack skilled labour. We will need engineers. Statistics tell us that. So that our industry may achieve the degree of development which it hopes for, we must import from somewhere else engineers and professional people, technicians of all kinds.
Our specialized schools are insufficient and I would only have to quote statistics to prove it. All hon. members know that. We trust that those coming from the outside will help give our Quebec or Canadian industry, French speaking Canadian, the impetus it needs, so that we can provide for the entry of immigrants from any country, as long as they have some affinity with our own culture. I always take for granted that the house understands that the union of the two cultures will make Canada prosperous.
I would also like to ask the minister if his department heads have been instructed to supervise more closely the immigration of agitators, anarchists by nature or profession, who come from other countries. This constitutes a real danger.
Take for instance the case of political refugees. Of course, some of them are in good faith; there are some who, in their own country, cannot agree with a totalitarian-minded government. But there might be some, and I emphasize that, who are eternal malcontents or anarchists, I called them anarchists by nature or profession, who will come here to become trouble-makers.
IMr. Mong-rain.]

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, in the province of Quebec, for instance, we saw in that separatist movement people who came from other countries, where they went in for agitation or anarchy and who taught our young people, our young idealists, who sometimes lack a sense of reality, how to revolt against the established order with the most modern methods.
I think that the immigration department should sift with a little more care those people who, in other countries, proved that they are eternal malcontents and who come here only to create a little more trouble.
I am not going into details, Mr. Chairman, because I remember that we have only 30 days to consider the estimates. About 12 days have gone already and I overlook what does not appear essential to me.
I would also like to insist on one thing-and I apologize if the department has already thought of it-namely that it is not enough to bring immigrants, whatever their racial origin or language. We should work closely with existing associations, call them whatever you like, chambers of commerce, junior chambers of commerce and you can probably think of 50 more like them, which would be happy to co-operate with the government and the department of immigration.
We should have some kind of intensive training for those new Canadians, taking a year or two, or more if necessary, to teach them what real Canadianism is, give them some notions of the history of Canada, explain how the federal, provincial and municipal governments operate. They should also be told how to integrate themselves a little more into the large Canadian community, so as to become active rather than useless members of our society.
I believe this to be rather important. Giving them entry to this country is easy enough, but it may not be as easy to have them become genuine Canadians. Efforts made until now could perhaps be intensified, systematized through the co-operation of the organizations I have mentioned.
Again as regards immigration, Mr. Chairman, I saw in the newspapers yesterday a report that the members of this house probably read also. A construction firm here in Ottawa was saying that they were to meet the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration since they wanted to import 50 skilled workers in building construction.
June 3, 19G6

It seems that there is a lack of skilled workers in construction in Ottawa. I admit, Mr. Chairman, that I was quite surprised, as 50 does not seem a very realistic figure to me and, in the area from where I come, in the seven or eight counties surrounding my riding, it would not be difficult for me at all to find those 50 workers. I wonder whether the necessary efforts were made through unemployment insurance officers, in order to recruit, for the building industry in Ottawa, the skilled workers that are needed before asking for some outside the country. Mr. Chairman, the excuse is given that Expo is monopolizing all the skilled workers, but once we are through with it, the immigrants we have allowed in this country will probably congest the construction field, at least it seems reasonable to think so, and I even find myself wondering whether I do not have any objection to immigration in that field and whether it would not be wiser to use up all our possibilities at home before resorting to immigration. It seems to me that if we applied to all the provincial unemployment insurance offices-and there are 10 provinces-we would certainly find 50 workers who would be glad to come to Ottawa and fill up this of skilled workers in construction.
Mr. Chairman, I am coming now to the labour question, under the jurisdiction of the honourable minister, and I repeat once more that it is not my intention to make a complete analysis of that question now before us, because I realize that the hon. colleagues here will do so or have already begun to do it and thus, thorugh our united efforts, we will have a pretty good picture of the situation.
I should like to recommend to the vigilance of the minister, when he deals with manpower, our students who, during the summer months, endeavour to earn a little to help with the cost of their studies, both in high school and at the university. Something is certainly lacking there, and not only there either.
For instance, there is the problem of the old people, for today one is old rather young. It is difficult to find work at 40 or 45, for all kinds of reasons, among others modern technical progress, social welfare progress. Whoever is unfortunate enough to be out of work has to resign himself to the possibility of death from hunger until such time as the old age pension allows him to subsist a while longer.
I should like to include also members of the feminine sex; I shall not call them old
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration maids, old women or widows, I shall say not so young, toward whom life has not been generous in that their husbands left them without means of subsistence, because husbands did not come at the right time and they remained single. It happens that those women grow in years, that they want to earn a living and do so, but still their situation is almost desperate.
I summarize the cases I have mentioned: students who want to pay for their studies, the old-and I mean those who are over 40 when I speak of the old-who cannot find employment because one is old at 40 on the labour market, one is already old-fashioned, and members of the feminine sex toward whom life has been less kind.
For these cases, would it not be possible to get the services of a sociologist who would look into those problems and find a means to allow these persons to earn their living, instead of being assisted through welfare and public charity and keeping them in this state of perpetual despair and disillusion toward our democracy that is so affluent that it should take care of its children.
I am wondering about that and I know that others agencies are also thinking about it. I only want to point out what they have already brought to the minister's attention, because it is perhaps one of the most urgent problems with respect to the mobility of manpower.
Mr. Chairman, was there at a certain time a sort of conflict, or at least an apparent conflict, that could have been exaggerated in the press, between the department of labour of the province of Quebec and the department of manpower of the federal government with respect to what was called the mobility of manpower?
I should like to see both ministers sitting around a table, as people of good will, to discuss objectively problems of synchronization of efforts between the two departments, because I am one of those who believe that the problem of manpower mobility cannot only be settled within the limits of one province, but that there must be intensive co-operation from the federal government.
I express the hope that the two ministers involved who are obviously Canadians of good will-I know them well enough to say it-can forget all secondary considerations, such as political or election concerns, to envisage only the common weal and try to find an agreement formula.
5962	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I have another suggestion to make in the field of manpower-it may be a side issue. Unemployment insurance is being paid to a lot of people in the country. It is a good thing and it has helped a lot. Like many others, I wonder whether it would not be appropriate to give productive work to some of those who are in receipt of unemployment insurance, who are fit and willing to work, who are proud enough to prefer earning their daily bread to living on hand-outs that often seem like charity or philanthropy, rather than recognition of their capacity.
I wonder if it would not be appropriate to review such legislation. I am aware that such a remark may raise an outcry, from the labour unions for instance. I know, because the Canadian Federation of Mayors to which I belonged for a number of years, dared express such a thought at one time. The next morning, editorials across the country charged that we were suggesting concentration camps. But I believe the Canadian worker has enough pride to want to earn his own bread, if he is given the opportunity, and that he is not satisfied to live off whatever is granted by the public treasury, because he feels it is an insult to his dignity as a man.
I wonder if this unemployment insurance program could not be reviewed in relation to the manpower mobility program, so as to apply it to those who are receiving unemployment insurance and who are in a position to accept some kind of job for which they are qualified and fit and who would agree in certain circumstances to be displaced temporarily to work where there are 40 skilled workers. Could not a middle road be found, so that we would stop saying what is being said often enough, not always rightly, but sometimes anyway, that unemployment insurance is some sort of a premium on sloth.
I am submitting these remarks very objectively to the minister of manpower, recognizing his own qualifications since he has personally been at the head of a labour organization; he must have studied, during his career, the sociological and economic aspects of labour organizations and I know that he will take my remarks quite objectively, with good will just as he can count on the co-operation of all members of the house in this area.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, like other hon. members of the party to which I belong, we welcome the changes the reorganization of

DEBATES	June 3, 1966
departments has brought about, and particularly the placing of immigration under the same minister as manpower.
It has always seemed to me to be somewhat impractical to make speeches, as members of parliament often do, or to write editorials, as so many newspapers do, about the virtues of large-scale immigration without taking into consideration employment and the economy. The member for Carleton made a speech again today, as he did on another occasion, which made me think that he was suggesting to the minister that he ought to do what that hon. member suggests rather than what that hon. member did. We never had as little immigration in the past 25 years as we had during those years when the hon. member for Carleton was the minister of citizenship and immigration. I am not criticizing him in this regard, because at that time we had fairly large-scale unemployment in this country, and no government could encourage extensive immigration under those circumstances.
Today we are enjoying a period of boom and full employment and the government is encouraging immigration. I subscribe to that encouragement, but immigration policies must be a part of the whole manpower policy of the government. Having said that, I should like to say to the minister, without being critical-because, as has been said before, he is the fourth minister of his department in four years-that I could very well make the same speech today, word for word, that I made in 1964, because the things I suggested then still have not been done, and the required policies still have not been enunciated. We are still waiting for the white paper on immigration which has been promised by every minister of immigration since I came here. In 1962, we are still waiting for amendments to the Immigration Act and regulations. I hope the present minister will remain in office long enough so that the promises made in the past about the white paper and revisions to the Immigration Act and regulations can be fulfilled.
It is not my intention to deal in detail with immigration needs at this time because they have been enunciated on many occasions by hon. members in the house of all parties. I wish to say to the minister, however, that the time is long past when we ought to have amended our laws and regulations in respect of citizenship and immigration to provide the right of proper appeal to any individual whose application for entry or for citizenship
June 3, 1966	COMMONS
status has been turned down by the government, or a board representing the government. An appeal procedure should be provided whereby a person who is making the appeal has the right to present his case, hear the objections taken against his application, and the right to answer the charges which have led the department to deny his application.
Mention has been made of the Sedgwick report, and I wish to deal with it briefly. If we had not observed so many terrible examples of totalitarian countries, both communist and fascist, burning books and reports, I would suggest to the minister that all the copies of the Sedgwick report in his department be burned. The few good things suggested in that report have been said many times both inside and outside this house and they do not need repeating. The rest of the report is bad, and I urge the minister to ignore the report almost entirely. I suppose we are all the products of our invironment and I do not wish to sound too critical, but it seems to me that the Sedgwick report is based on a very restrictionist point to view, taken so often by individuals who have been in and have run this country almost since its formation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Knowingly or unknowingly, if the recommendations of Mr. Sedgwick were adopted we would cut off almost completely the entry into Canada of the large number of people who have been coming and are continuing to come from countries such as Italy, Greece, Portugal and many others of southern and eastern Europe, because they have been coming here as a result of sponsorship by their families or relatives. They have not been coming in the traditional ways in which people have come from Great Britain and countries of northern and western Europe. I think it is a good thing that people have been coming from those countries and I want that immigration to continue; but if the recommendations which Mr. Sedgwick made were adopted by the government, this immigration would virtually stop. I think the government ought to forget about the Sedgwick report.
I want to raise just one point, which I have mentioned on other occasions. This is in regard to immigration policy and the laws that apply to immigration. There is a feeling held by prime ministers and governments of some commonwealth countries-of the nonwhite countries, if I may put it that way-that the immigration laws, regulations and policies
DEBATES	5963
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of the government of Canada discriminate against people from those countries coming to Canada. I want to quote very briefly from a speech made by Prime Minister Eric Williams of Trinidad and Tobago which was reported in the Globe and Mail of May 24, 1965, as follows:
The latest came last week, when Prime Minister Erie Williams of Trinidad and Tobago accused commonwealth countries of "racial inequality and discrimination against people of colour, as if they are poison or disease".
He said further:
"Canada eases its conscience by accepting a handful of domestic servants. The contemporary slogan is Keep Britain White-the very Britain which was built up by African and Asian labour in Africa, Asia and the West Indies. Whatever the commonwealth may be in theory, it is in practice being increasingly tainted with a racial limitation.
The Globe and Mail quotes figures which prove conclusively that Mr. Williams knew what he was talking about, because in the year before Mr. Williams made this speech

that is, the year 1964-Canada permitted 112,606 immigrants to come to Canada? Of these only 1,493 were West Indians, 2,127 were Chinese, 1,309 were Indian and 104 were Japanese. So Mr. Williams was certainly not exaggerating when he said very specifically that Canada's policies in fact are designed to permit really only white immigrants to come to Canada. This ought not and cannot be permitted to continue.
I want to deal in the time I have left with a matter that I think is of the utmost importance. This country is embarking upon a policy-and I agree with the policy-of expanded immigration, a policy of encouraging more people to come to Canada. The economic situation in Europe being what it is, it is impossible, whether we want it or not, for that immigration to continue to come almost exclusively, as it did in earlier years, from countries such as Great Britain and those in Scandinavia. A very large percentage of the immigrants who come to Canada are from Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and countries in which the people to a large extent do not speak English.
I am not being critical of this policy-I support it-but it creates a very serious problem for Canada both for now and the future. I think it is good that the minister in charge of immigration is also the minister of manpower, because it seems to me he can look at this problem and the implications of what we are doing in a very practical and concrete manner. Studies have been carried out in
5964	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Toronto, and I am sure if similar studies were carried out in Montreal, Winnipeg or Vancouver the results would be the same, which indicate that immigrant children are discriminated against in the Toronto schools system-not deliberately, not as a matter of policy but simply because the Toronto schools system, like the Montreal, Vancouver or Winnipeg schools systems, are not geared to teach the regular curriculum to large numbers of children whose mother tongue is not English. I have here a report which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 17, 1966. I will read just a few paragraphs of it to indicate what the problem is. This article deals with a report by a citizens group in Toronto and refers to the report in this way:
It says that those who cannot speak English are urged to quit school when they are 16, and until they reach that age, they do little but sit out their time.
The group's findings are similar to those in a report by the Toronto Board of Education.
Existing facilities for immigrant children who do not speak English are inadequate and to a large degree non-existent, the citizens' report finds.
Later on the article says:
The report says that virtually no teenage immigrants who don't speak English enter the high school system.
"We were told by several people that if a teenage girl or boy of 14 turns up at school who does not speak English he is usually encouraged to get a work permit and get a job."
The findings of the survey carried out by this citizens group have been duplicated in a report by the Toronto Board of Education. I am speaking from memory, but their report estimated that it would cost $2 million a year for special programs to help children of new immigrants to Canada adjust and stay in school. This is a very small price to pay. I have mentioned in the house before, and I say to the minister now, that even though education is the responsibility of the provinces, under the British North America Act it is a problem of the government of Canada and the people of Canada, not only morally because we encourage these people to come here, but because if these young people do not continue at school, if they do not acquire the skills they require, they will be in the same position five or ten years from now as the thousands of people in Canada who did not go to high school and are finding it increasingly difficult to get jobs today.
We have embarked upon a manpower training program. I do not think it is good enough, but it is far superior to anything we

DEBATES	June 3, 1966
have done in the past. It makes little sense to me if, when we embark upon a manpower training program for young people and adults who were born and brought up in Canada, we do not at the same time face up to the problem of training and educating young, new immigrants to Canada; because they will be here for the next 30, 40 or 50 years and the kind of training they receive now will to a large extent determine the kind of work they will do in the coming years. I suggest to the minister that he could do nothing more important in the next year than devise in co-operation with the provinces workable solutions to this problem, programs to which the federal government would contribute financially even though there is some question whether under the constitution the federal government is responsible. What is true of immigrant youngsters who are still attending school is true of immigrants who have come to Canada and are now old enough to work.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In the Globe and Mail of May 30 of this year there is an article entitled "Immigrants refused classroom space while schools lie idle, report charges". The news story is summarized from a report prepared for the International Institute of Metropolitan Toronto, and I shall read several paragraphs from the article as it appeared in the Globe and Mail.
Immigrants who need and want education are going without it while huge schools lie idle, according to a study "Newcomers and New Learning", released during the weekend . . .
Many new classes for adults are needed now, but it is claimed there is no space for them. Yet there are numerous school buildings, constructed at great expense, which are open only eight or nine hours a day between March and October and some of them not at all during the summer holidays. This is a waste of taxpayers money . . .
Miss Ferguson says that last spring and summer, when auto mechanics were in short supply, the project was refused space to give trained Greek auto mechanics a skill-adjustment course that would have quickly fitted them to go to work. At the same time, from March to October, auto mechanics shops lay idle in the technical schools each evening.
Here is a concrete example of the need for the manpower training program, which the federal government is sponsoring, to use all the facilities and to take care of the people who have been encouraged to come to Canada by the story that there is work for them, only to find that they are not qualified.
In this regard the report says the following:
Recent arrivals feel they have been misled by Department of Immigration officials who did not
June 3, 1966

make the true state of affairs known to them at the time of application. When they write home or return home, they tell their experiences to other prospective immigrants.
Some very concrete suggestions are contained in this report and I will quote a few of them:
Further experimental programs for immigrants "to discover the quickest and most effective means of combining instruction in English with upgrading of basic education and occupational training;"
Recruitment of a staff of bilingual or multilingual field workers to promote education among immigrants;
Establishment of educational counselling services with multilingual staffs at locations convenient to the employed and unemployed;
That an adult education department be set up by the Metropolitan School Board for co-ordinating Metro schemes;
-Year around English language and citizenship classes for immigrants, available day or evening, anywhere there is sufficient demand.
Mr. Chairman, I know that some of this work is being done by cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, but I want to reiterate what I said earlier, that I think it is the responsibility of the federal government to give leadership in this field and to put up a substantial part, if not all, of the funds required. If people are encouraged to come to Canada, as they are, the decision to follow this policy having been made not by the cities concerned but by the federal government, it is the responsibility of the latter to provide the funds. I say that the federal government has both a moral and, I think, a legal responsibility to take action in this scheme.
Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with one other matter about which I had asked some questions and about which I have had some correspondence with the minister. I do not raise this in a critical manner. There is ample evidence that while the federal government has successfully embarked on a program of encouraging skilled and highly qualified people to come to Canada, certain groups, in their own selfish interests or because of their racial or religious prejudices, are making the work of the department to a large extent useless. I am referring specifically to what has happened and what is continuing to happen to a large number of doctors who have been encouraged to come to Canada and who have settled in Ontario. In the last five years, 763 doctors have come to Canada from Asia, a large number of them from India and Pakistan.
DEBATES	5965
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chairman, I am not being critical but the government has followed an aggressive policy of encouraging doctors, as it has encouraged engineers and other skilled professionals, to come to Canada. Doctors in particular have been able to write examinations and to practise in a number of provinces in Canada. They have been able to practise in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the maritimes. However, the province of Ontario, which suffers from almost as great a shortage of doctors as any other province in Canada, has adopted, through the College of Physicians and Surgeons, discriminatory measures. Doctors from India and Pakistan are not permitted to write the exams and therefore to get licences to practise.
Mr. Chairman, I will not give details in regard to this today, although it can be done and I have sent substantial material to the minister regarding this situation, but the fact is that there are doctors in Ontario who have graduated from schools in India, who have been able to get their licences and practise in other provinces, but who will not be permitted to write the examinations and to practise in Ontario. The College of Physicians and Surgeons is quite happy to let them work in Ontario hospitals because of the shortage of doctors in that province-and those who work in the hospitals are not overpaid-but they have been adamant in their determination to prevent those doctors from practising.
Of course, the College is scandalized by the suggestion that this refusal is based on racial prejudice. An examination of the evidence however makes it very clear that there is no other reason. One of the reasons which has been given is that the education which those doctors received in India is not as good as the education given to Canadian or European doctors. Evidence proves the exact contrary.
The Medical Council of Canada sets examinations for doctors who wish to practise in Canada and who have been trained in other countries. The records which they keep are very precise and exact. I want to give a few examples from those records. They show that between the years 1919 and 1963, of doctors who came to Canada from Austria and wrote the Medical Council's examinations, only 54.3 per cent passed, only 56.9 per cent of Belgian doctors passed, 73.8 per cent of French doctors passed, 37.7 per cent of Greek doctors passed and 50.6 per cent of Hungarian doctors passed. And yet, Mr. Chairman, all of these doctors who came from these countries
June 3, 1966

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration are permitted to write their examinations in Canada.
However, if you look at the number of doctors from India who have written the examinations, you will see that 76.4 per cent passed them. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario has refused any doctor who graduated in India permission to write the examinations. There is no other explanation for this except prejudice on the basis of race or colour.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It has been argued by the College of Physicians and Surgeons that the reason is the training is not good enough, that the percentage of full-time teachers as compared to enrolment in Indian medical colleges is not satisfactory. A comparison of the medical colleges in Canada, the medical colleges in other countries and the medical colleges in India, proves conclusively that this is not true. The ratio between teaching doctors in Indian medical colleges, and students, is just as good as the ratio in other countries. I know that the licensing of doctors is a provincial matter, and that the government of Ontario has given the job of determining qualifications to the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. However, I do not believe that is a reason for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration just leaving it at that. After all, we are encouraging these people to come to Canada, and rightly so. There is a shortage of doctors in this country, in every province.
According to the Prime Minister, this country will institute a national medicare plan on July 1, 1967. At that time the people will not have to worry about the expense of seeing a doctor, and the shortage of doctors will become even more acute. This kind of discrimination, based on race and colour, is contrary to every principle of democracy, every principle of equality, and contrary to the needs of this country. I hope the minister will take a broad view rather than the very narrow, legal view that this matter is the responsibility of the provincial governments and there is nothing the department can do. If the government of Canada were to take this matter up with the Premier of Ontario or the Minister of Health of Ontario, and make it clear this kind of policy is not acceptable to the people of Canada, I believe the government of Ontario would find ways of convincing the College of Physicians and Surgeons that this policy must stop, and must stop now. I hope the minister will consider the

matters which I have raised today, because I believe they are important.
Unless we move quickly, energetically and aggressively to meet the problems of continuing the immigration we need in this country in increasing numbers from non-English speaking countries, in years to come we will be faced with problems in the field of employment and in the field of welfare which would have been completely unnecessary if we had moved now in the light of the experience of the last few years.


Mr. Lambert:: I hope I will only take about five minutes to cover the points that I must necessarily cut short at this time. First of all, I could not disagree more with the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who seems to indicate any person has the right of entry into another country, that he has a fundamental right of entry. I do not believe so. There is a sovereign right to exclude those persons we see fit to exclude, in the same way I can be excluded from any other country. I cannot insist upon my right, under any conditions, to be admitted into another country. This does not mean, however, that I do not agree with him that there might not be some relaxation in connection with the refusal, in many instances, to give the reason for the exclusion of a person.
For instance, I am thinking of medical grounds. Frankly, the old practice of the department in this connection is out of date. There is nothing wrong with telling a person he is suffering from tuberculosis or from this or that particular ailment. You might be doing the person a kindness by telling him what you have discovered. If the refusal is related to the fact a person has had a nervous breakdown, then let us have a look at that. This is one area in which I suggest we do have to overhaul our procedures. The fact the person has suffered a nervous breakdown is not a permanent stigma, otherwise a great proportion of the people of Canada would be under this stigma.
We have made great advances in this regard, but at the present time there are statutory difficulties. I am suggesting to the minister that there should be a review of these particular statutory disabilities. I have spoken about the difficulties under section 5 (d) in relation to moral turpitude, and I still maintain my views about that.
Mention has been made of the Sedgwick report which dealt with a particular problem, in the main, namely ship jumping. This is all
June 3, 1966	COMMONS
right, and I can readily understand it. In so far as the Sedgwick report recommends the elimination of sponsored immigrants and that we restrict ourselves to skilled persons, then I think the report should be buried. I feel it should be absolutely buried. I do not believe we should be limiting ourselves to a small category of sponsored immigrants. We cannot afford to do so, because I feel it is mouthing sheer nonsense to say that we shall get only skilled workers from abroad. We may try to get them, but then what do we do? We indulge in the greatest hypocrisy at home. Our trade unions are to blame in part. They have restrictive regulations as to apprenticeship and as to qualifications for admission. I know a number of European trained workmen who are, frankly, just as good as if not better than our own Canadians, but do you think they can become qualified? They could not become qualified in a year of Sundays. The same situation prevails with respect to our professional bodies.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North when he refers to our doctors. As a lawyer I say that we too, in the legal profession, are antediluvian in this regard. We have some sort of idea that we must featherbed. There is a sort of depression complex that you have to maintain these private preserves for a limited number of people. What utter nonsense this is. I lay the blame all the way down the line, in our professional bodies, our trade unions and our provincial departments of labour who administer industrial standards. If we say we are going to attract skilled people, then let us give them the opportunity immediately to earn a living, and not make them wait years to qualify.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we must also go out and get unskilled people. This country was originally populated by unskilled people. We have great demands for people. Certainly we admit unskilled people under the sponsorship categories, many of them being relatives of other unskilled people. And what are they but successful people today? So why should we say that these people do not possess any skills, or that they do not have the equivalent of grade 10 education, as somebody in the Department of Immigration at one time indicated to me as one reason entry was refused. Shame. We have many of our own people who have not attained grade 10 education; and in many skilled occupations grade 10 is not reached. So why put that excuse forward now?
DEBATES	5967
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
With regard to speaking either of the two languages, I should like the staff of the department to go to a country where there may be 25 or 30 languages in use, and where very few of the people speak English, and yet get along. So let us not have such reasons as these put forward. If we need manpower, let us go out and get it, both skilled and unskilled. We can certainly use it and train it.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres indicated that he was surprised that any contractor should ask for 50 workers. I had a case last spring of a contractor who wanted to import 100 workers from Italy because he could not get any labour in this country. The department referred him to the National Employment Service. The men who were referred to him were simply not worth the powder, and that is all there was to it.
Just because there is a surplus of labour in Quebec or in the maritimes or in some particular pocket in the country, you cannot say that you will be able to transfer them to an area in which there is a demand for labour, because there are many factors to consider. For example, they may have families with children at school, and perhaps a home which represents their only equity. You cannot move them around just like so many numbers. Therefore I suggest it is wrong to say that until you have completely and utterly exhausted the number of people who are unemployed or are unemployable you cannot bring in workers to meet the requirements of the employer and of the job.
There are many other matters I should like to raise, but finally may I say that I appreciate the increase in immigration from Hong Kong last year over the previous years. I also appreciate the great understanding that has been displayed by immigration officials in this regard. The minister told me that the staff in Hong Kong had been increased, but it seems that the periods of appointment are lengthening again. Perhaps we could have another look at this; it is very discouraging.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will be able to see the white paper. There are some other matters I should like to discuss, but in view of the time I will hold them for some other occasion.
fTranslation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, my first words will be to thank hon. members of the house for the suggestions, the criticism and, indeed, in some cases, the hopes which have
June 3, 1966

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration been expressed; I may add that I also understand those who were less optimistic.
It is obvious that, upon arriving in a new department, which has a past, it is not easy to defend all that was done previously. It is not my intention to do so, neither on behalf of those of the party of which I am a member nor of those who were there before. I also understand those who have particular interest in immigration problems and who want amendments in order to correct situations that everybody has been wanting to remedy for years.
I do not think it was ill-will, neither on the part of the minister of immigration of the previous government, nor of his predecessors.
In this field, a consensus must be reached on some immigration philosophy. It is the white paper on immigration that must define this immigration philosophy and program. I must accept some responsibility for a certain delay in the tabling of this white paper, because I requested that a certain part which I did not agree with be rewritten. It is not the departmental officials who are responsible for that delay; I am. And I think that, being a new minister and having to take responsibility for this white paper in this house, it was in order that I should request the departmental officials to rewrite certain parts which did not suit me, although the house is free to disagree with what I may propose. There have been delays over a period of years; if you have no reason to believe that such delays will not be multiplied, perhaps you have none to believe that they will not be shortened.
All I can say to the house-and I cannot lay formal proof before it-is that this white paper is almost completed. It will have to be revised but the writing is about completed. I hope we will be able to present it. As several members have asked, it will be referred to a committee of the house as soon as it is completed. Hon. members will then have every opportunity to consider it and to make suggestions and recommendations so that our immigration policy meets the wishes of the Canadian people.
But, Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer a few of the questions that were put during the debate.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being five o'clock, and in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, shall I rise, report progress and request
leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would meet the wishes of hon. members if we were to suspend private members' hour for today and continue the discussion of the estimates as we had been doing immediately before five o'clock. If that is agreeable, I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to announce the business for Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be difficult, but-


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


David Orlikow: -this is a department in which a number of our members are interested, and in connection with which they have a number of problems to raise. I am certain that we cannot finish the whole of the estimates in the next hour. However, I am agreeable to the minister's completing the statement he began, and to passing item 1 of the estimates. I cannot agree to continuing until six o'clock and finishing the whole department.


George James McIlraith: I wonder if I could ask a question by way of clarification. Do I understand the hon. member to want to revert to private members' hour at the end of the proceedings he mentioned?


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is what I am suggesting.


George James McIlraith: I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that we have already referred the subject matter of I think, some 33 private members' bills and resolutions to committees of the house, with a view to obtaining recommendations that should embody legislation. I think it is quite unprecedented in the history of parliament. We propose doing the same with some four or five other resolutions now on the order paper. I wonder if the hon. member would agree to letting us go on with the estimates of some other department, if what I have said helps to meet his problem.


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is agreeable to me.
June 3, 1366


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Does the house agree to dispensing with the private members' hour today and going on with the estimates of some other department-


George James McIlraith: After item No. 1.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: After item No. 1 is carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George James McIlraith: Might I take advantage of this opportunity to announce the intended business for Monday. We proposed proceeding with item No. 56 on the order paper, third reading of the bill respecting the organization of the government of Canada; then item No. 7, resumption of the debate on the bill to amend the Yukon Act; then item No. 58, second reading of the bill respecting employment in the Public Service of Canada; then item No. 59, second reading of the bill to amend the Financial Administration Act; then item No. 51, the resolution to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and certain other superannuation acts; then item No. 54, consideration of Senate amendments to the combines investigation bill, and item No. 4, consideration of Senate amendments to the National Research Council bill.



INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT   NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES TO STANDING COMMITTEE

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the proceedings this morning I seek unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions in order that I may move two motions in connection with the designated areas program, and the estimates of the National Research Council and the Medical Research Council.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I move:
That the items listed in the Main Estimates for 1967 relating to the National Research Council including the Medical Research Council, presented to the house at the present session, be withdrawn from the Committee of Supply, and referred to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public monies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration CONSIDERATION BY STANDING COMMITTEE OF DESIGNATED AREA PROGRAM
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That the Standing Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development be empowered to consider the subject matter of the designated area program and the criteria thereunder.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, this committee to which two sets of estimates have been referred is also considering those of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Does the minister hope that the committee can complete its task rapidly, in this context?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this morning I questioned, on the grounds the hon. member has raised, the desirability of making these references to the committee. I was assured that there was a great desire that that be done, and I accordingly agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
General Administration-
1. General Administration including the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker; the promotion of programs for combatting seasonal unemployment; the organization and use of workers for farming and related Industries; and the manpower consultative service, $3,913,500.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 1 carry?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
(Translation)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, as several members pointed out this afternoon, I am in favour of an extensive and systematic immigration for Canada. I feel, however, that our immigration policy should take into account the situation of the Canadian economy and labour market, not exclusively but inclusively, among other factors.
We are told sometimes that we should follow the example of the United States. It was somewhat the basis of the argument put forward by the member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). As a matter of fact, I thought his intervention contained the same type of argument. According to that argument, we should follow the American policy, that is, accept the greatest possible number of immigrants, with a view to extending our domestic
June 3, 1966
5970	COMMONS
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration market and eventually bringing about prosperity.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it should be kept in mind that conditions in 1966 are not the same as those which prevailed when massive immigration took place in the United States. The professional requirements of the labour class, when the United States allowed massive immigration were not similar to those existing today.
When I joined the trade union movement, probably 30 per cent of labour was unskilled and could easily be absorbed by industry. Nowadays, this ratio has fallen to 10 per cent and keeps going down. At a time when our efforts are directed towards professional and technical training, we should strive to provide those unskilled workers with a proper training to enable them to escape unemployment. Our immigration policy should not be allowed to contradict this manpower retraining policy.
Whether we like it or not, Mr. Chairman, even when reference is made to selective immigration, even when immigrants are required to have certain professional qualifications in order to come to Canada, the fact remains nevertheless that under our sponsorship policy, year after year, approximately 35 per cent of immigrants coming to Canada are unskilled workers. They are being admitted to Canada for a humanitarian reason rather than a professional one.
I feel we should continue to stress professional qualifications so that immigrants come to Canada, not necessarily to enjoy our culture or our bilingualism, but rather to make a better living.
I think that if we accept immigrants, we should see that they are provided with suitable jobs. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, there is a very serious danger of giving rise to negative reactions on the part of workers. If ever workers realize that immigrants compete with them on the labour market, thus increasing unemployment, then a negative reaction to immigration will take place, and I think nobody wishes that to happen.
That type of immigration should therefore be rational, in that it should take into account our economic situation, our development and growth. But at the same time, it must be humane. And I think that by reconciling those two factors, our immigration policy will really achieve the purposes we are aiming at.


The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has touched upon several points and almost insisted that I give a reply to each one of them. I feel he is familiar enough with parliamentary procedure and the ways of government not to expect me to give him, this afternoon, texts that would provide an eventual solution to the problems he has brought up. I can merely tell him, in all sincerity, that the points he brought up do not only interest me, but are of concern to me as they are to the department. We hope to solve them within a short time. Not only that I feel we will have to deal with certain problems even sooner than with the white paper, that is to say we shall be able to solve certain problems before the white paper comes before the house.
There is the problem of sponsorship and that of courts of appeal. I believe those problems can be solved before the overall problem of immigration is looked into.
With regard to the setting up of a court of appeal with wider powers than those it now has, I believe we will come to an agreement; it will be a matter of drawing up a text which is almost ready now and which we hope to be able to submit to the house.
Several members have brought up a question which is of concern to me, and doubtess to others who have not spoken: that of security. It truly is the type of problem one hardly dares bring up because of a persistent feeling that the security of the state is at stake. Only, not talking about it eventually leads to even involuntary abuse of individual rights and freedoms. Sooner or later we may have to re-investigate the whole matter, even if it means taking certain chances.
I therefore fully agree on that point, and I trust the house will approve what recommendations we may make in that respect. For with regard to security, you know, sir, that according to the law certain countries are completely exempted from security tests. The purpose of such security rulings is to protect our country from certain agents. I feel there are times when we are most inadequately protected. Such countries as might be interested in sending spies or saboteurs to Canada would be intelligent enough to send them by way of those countries where there are no security tests. The whole question must be gone into, with due regard to individual rights and freedoms.
I think that any immigration or security system intended not only, and in this respect
June 3, 1966

everybody will agree, to get rid of saboteurs, anarchists, dynamiters and what have you, but also to exert a control on the free and democratic thought of the people, is a bad system. Then freedom is in danger. I think that in Canada, while we cannot afford to be threatened with dynamiting and sabotage, we certainly can run all the risks that involve our freedom.
At any rate, let us say that, with this mentality, we shall move soon, I hope, certain amendments that will take into consideration some of the points raised by the hon. member for Carleton.
The hon. member for Carleton mentioned that one of the objectives as far as the number of immigrants to Canada is concerned could be set at about 1 per cent. Well, 1 think this year, we will get this objective of 1 per cent of the population of Canada and I hope this trend will continue in years to come.
It is a fact that conditions are more favourable this year for massive immigration than they were in previous years. It is more easily acceptable to the people since immigrants can readily find jobs and workers do not have the impression that immigrants come here to compete with them. Now it is a fact that these conditions exist and I think the over-all policy of the department is intended to increase the number of immigrants.
The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) spoke about the manpower mobility program. It is sure this program is not perfect and that it will have to be rectified as was already done since its inception in December last. We have reviewed it, we have adopted new regulations, for instance the Bissette case has been dealt with in a special way. We had to work out new regulations in that instance and we shall continue to improve them, so as to put the emphasis on grants rather than on loans for workers who will have to move from one town to another.
I believe we should not delude ourselves on the efficiency of a program aimed at manpower mobility. We cannot move people systematically and massively from Newfoundland to Vancouver or from Winnipeg to Quebec. People are attached to their environment, and I think some ideas conveyed by the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Saltsman) are quite defensible. If we could develop some growth centres in the provinces, this would certainly meet our needs far
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration better and would not require the uprooting of whole populations.
As regards the amendment of the Citizenship Act, in order to ensure equality of rights for all Canadian citizens, there is no doubt that if you are a naturalized Canadian citizen, your rights are more restrictive than those of a Canadian born citizen. I believe that everybody is agreeable to the idea. As stated, everybody has wanted this discrimination to disappear from the act for many years now.
Even the hon. member for Carleton, though well-meaning, did not have time to introduce this amendment. I hope to remain in office long enough to do so, and I expect this will be in the near future, so that all Canadian citizens may be on an equal footing.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Richard Albert Bell: Why not bring it down and we will pass it next week?


Jean Marchand: Well, unless there is another Spencer case-


Richard Albert Bell: We want to get ahead
with it.


Jean Marchand: Well, I do not think it will be too long. As for the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), he dealt with the Lord Thomson case. Of course, it is a tragic situation, but Lord Thomson lost his Canadian citizenship not because he was decorated by the Queen of England, but because he agreed to become a citizen of the United Kingdom. That is why he lost his Canadian citizenship under a formal provision of the Canadian Citizenship Act. If he wants to get it back, he can easily do it, but the act requires him to come and reside in Canada for at least a certain period of time.
According to the information I have, his case has nothing to do with the fact that he received a decoration; it is rather based on the fact that he has agreed to become a citizen of a foreign country and, as such, has automatically lost his rights to Canadian citizenship.
As for the observations of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) about Canadian workers or labourers who are called-up in the United States, I am ready to discuss this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), but it does not come actually under my jurisdiction.
June 3, 1968

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Now we will certainly have to try our best, in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the law, to facilitate the access to Canada of people living behind the iron curtain, who now meet with certain difficulties. I think that question was put to me by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko). This is another problem which we have considered. We tried to find out how to put these people on an equal footing with immigrants from other countries, without jeopardizing Canadian security and the proper application of the act.
This is a more involved problem but it is now being considered by the department, and we hope to find a solution which we will submit to you as soon as possible.
Members have dealt with immigrants coming from certain countries of Asia and Africa. All countries are certainly not on the same footing with regard to the Immigration Act. In the matter of sponsorship alone one notices a certain discrimination. Should it be abolished? Personally, I feel that any type of discrimination should be eliminated from every provision of the act, so that people wishing to come to Canada be all on the same footing. Should special cases come up, we could exercise various other means of control. I do not think that discrimination should be embodied in the act itself. Therefore, it is a solution to a problem that we hope to be able to submit to you quite soon.
Now, the hon. member for Edmonton East referred to the case of a Frenchwoman married to a Pole who cannot come to Canada. Her husband is not acceptable here not because he is a communist, but simply because we cannot check his record.
Therefore, this is related to immigration difficulties in the case of those living behind the iron curtain. Those are problems that we will have to solve soon enough and I would even hope to settle them before consideration of the white paper on immigration.
Of course, it gives rise to injustice when it can be said that someone is a communist or a danger for Canada. Very often, when there is a risk involved, we do not impose it upon this country, but rather upon the applicant for entry into Canada. But perhaps it would be necessary to widen the door in this regard so as to avoid certain situations which are absolutely inhuman.
It is the problem that ministers of immigration have had to face in the last few years and I am not alone in this. Besides, I was told

that that was really the place where ministers were buried, because in spite of human problems, we are obliged to apply the law as is. This involves considerable difficulties. If a risk is taken, if at a given time we let a common law criminal or a bandit get through, as it happened in the past, this may result in a general uneasiness in certain quarters.
Anyway, we will seek to adjust the law so that this situation cannot occur again.
Now, we were asked to try and establish a special class for people intending to go into agriculture. It is quite normal to want to attract immigrants to make farmers out of them, but if they farm for two, three, four or five months, and if economic conditions are such that they are attracted to our cities, it serves no purpose.
I think that to accept people with lesser qualifications, ostensibly because they will work in agriculture, is to fool oneself because, as soon as they see they can earn $1 or $2 more per hour in Toronto, these people will leave agriculture. The only way is to bind them by their fare, in other words to promise to pay their fare provided they work on a farm for one, two or three years. But, in my opinion, this is not a very sound procedure in a democracy. I think this is slave labour rather than freedom. Anyway, in such cases, they cannot he forced to stay. I do not believe this is an acceptable method and philosophy as applied to immigration.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) talked of the balance of cultures in Canada, between the French and the English element. Of course, nowadays immigrants are not like merchandise that one can pick and choose. They must be sought after and we must take them wherever we can, when they are ready to come.
In my opinion, since Quebec has begun to follow Ontario, it should deal with the immigration problem and set up offices in French speaking countries in order to solve those problems. I am sure Quebec will receive full co-operation from the federal government. The Ontario government has been doing this for several years in co-operation with the federal government. This does not create friction of any sort and there is no objection to Quebec doing the same thing, so long, of course, as it respects the law and regulations of the Canadian immigration office. I believe this is the way to preserve this balance rather than at the federal level.
June 3, 1966	COMMONS
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres also spoke of construction workers brought into Ottawa. I should like him to give me further information on this subject, because I do not think immigrants have been brought to Ottawa for the construction industry. If there is a particular case, I am willing to discuss it, but I do not know of one.
The hon. member made a suggestion with which I basically disagree when he said we should try to find part-time work for those who draw unemployment insurance.
Unemployment insurance is a type of insurance. The people who get unemployment insurance are not living on public charity. If we give start to competition between workers and those who are on unemployment insurance, I fear we will create an unbearable situation. Those people start working for lower salaries and will finally end up competing with regular workers. To my mind we must instead find regular employment for the people on unemployment insurance, full-time jobs that will afford them a livelihood. We must not allow them to compete against the working class.
The member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) spoke of a court of appeal-I have already spoken about it-and of the Sedgwick report.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)

We have studied the Sedgwick report, but we never suggested that it was our intention to apply or implement it in its present form. Surely there will be some changes made and for the time being I do not think we are in disagreement in this regard.
The hon. member spoke about the report made by Miss Edith Ferguson. All I have to say in this regard is that under federal-provincial training agreements, the decision to establish training programs and extend living allowances is a provincial decision rather than a federal one. At the present time the federal government contributes 75 per cent of training costs and 90 per cent of living allowances for unemployed persons, including immigrants in full-time courses, and 50 per cent of training costs for employed persons taking part-time courses.
The provincial and federal officials will be making arrangements to hold discussions on these matters in the near future. If provincial governments decide for example to set up classes combining language, citizenship and academic subjects for newcomers who need
DEBATES	5973
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration this training for employment the federal government will share in the costs. The government is also willing and anxious to do what it can to lessen any other obstacles to the effective integration of newcomers.
Although a knowledge of either English or French is not a requirement for admission to Canada, all unsponsored immigrants selected overseas by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration are informed that until they know the language of their community of settlement they cannot expect to realize their full capabilities. Written advice is given to all such immigrants on the necessity of learning either English or French early in the immigration process, and it is suggested to them that they take language instruction prior to their leaving for Canada. This point is further stressed during the interview with the counselling officer, and the facilities for carrying on language instruction after arrival in Canada are explained.
As far as unskilled immigrants are concerned, the department is not selecting such persons abroad unless they meet certain basic educational requirements. We are ready to work with provincial governments in this field, and I hope our efforts in this regard will be fruitful.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has also mentioned the case of medical doctors who cannot practise even with professional qualifications. In this field, we have already approached the provincial government of Quebec. We are ready to apply again to the Ontario government, if need be, so that provincial governments may bring professional organizations to cease this discrimination, not only in the case of physicians but of all professionals immigrating to Canada. The same thing could probably be asked of our good friends of the trade unions, as they are sometimes a little too conservative in this field. Immigrants must feel at home in Canada and they must be convinced that their professional qualifications are recognized.
But the hon. member for Winnipeg North will understand that this matter does not come directly under our jurisdiction and that we have to leave it to the provincial authorities, which usually control the activities of these private organizations.
Mr. Chairman, those are the remarks I wanted to make following the comments made in the house and which I took in very good part.
June 3, 1966
5974	COMMONS DEBATES
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration In a lew years, shall we find again in the few days and asked me to do something Speech from the Throne the same hopes as about getting farm help for them. In the were expressed in two, three, four or five majority of cases, they would like to hire previous Speeches from the Throne? I cannot their farm help by the year, and out in the swear it is impossible. I only wish to say that country in which I live people are well able we shall do the utmost in order that the next to do this. The difficulty is that labourers are Speech from the Throne may deal with other just about as scarce as hens' teeth at this topics than immigration and citizenship.	time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister. During his remarks I did not hear him say anything about immigration provisions regarding farm workers in western Canada. At one time certain immigrants were expected and required to work on farms for one year before moving to another type of employment. This provision seems to have gone by the boards in the last few years. It is very difficult to get farm labour in western Canada and I believe that some provision should be made which would require certain types of immigrants from other countries to make themselves available for farm work for a certain period of time.
There is no point in requiring immigrant doctors and lawyers who must requalify in this country to spend a certain period of time working as farm labourers. It is much better to have trained farm workers required to put in a certain period of time at this type of work before moving to another occupation. I should like to hear what the minister has to say about this matter. He may well have said something in this regard during his remarks, but if he did I did not hear it.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I missed the first part of the hon. member's remarks. Let me assure hon. members that there are a certain number of farmers coming to Canada each year. I do not have the figures with me, but the problem in this regard is that even though these people are required to work on farms they do not stay at that work, for different reasons, some of which are economic. I understand that what the hon. member has in mind is that there should be a clear understanding or even a formal agreement that they will stay on the farms for a while. Is this the question the hon. member put to me?


Frank John William Fane: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the minister wishes, I can supply him with the names of people who have written to me in the last


Jean Marchand: The number of people employed on farms in Canada is decreasing all the time and has been decreasing tremendously in the past 10 or 20 years. At the same time, for many reasons farmers have not been in a position to provide competitive working conditions and pay competitive wages. Therefore it is very difficult to counteract this trend. I should like to reserve judgment on this question because there are a number of things of which I am not aware. But personally I am not very enthusiastic about having formal agreements in order to compel a free citizen to stay in a certain job for years if he does not like it, or can find a better job somewhere else. I am not sure that such agreements could be easily implemented or enforced. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this question as notice and perhaps I can discuss it with the hon. member. When my estimates come back, as they probably will, for consideration by the committee perhaps I can clarify this point.


Frank John William Fane: Perhaps I would be able to visit the minister in his office and we could talk it over under perhaps better circumstances than these.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member is welcome to visit me in my office.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to address a question to the minister. Does he intend to make some arrangements concerning the immigrants who cross the border into the United States and who cost a lot of money to Canadians? They do not stay very long in Canada and they go over shortly to the United States. I believe some steps should be taken, and I wish I were informed of the minister's opinion on this matter.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, Canada is a country which benefits from immigration. If we consider the final result of immigration, the number of persons entering Canada as compared to the number of those leaving it, we have a positive balance-sheet, that is there are many more immigrants entering Canada than leaving the country.
June 3, 1966

So, if Canada is happy to receive immigrants, I believe it would be quite illogical to try to impose restrictions on people wishing to go elsewhere, because if all countries acted like that, the migration of populations would be impossible.
Concerning the United States, there is no doubt that we incur in deficit on immigration and emigration. In other words, there are more people from Canada going to the United States than there are coming to Canada from the United States. The discrepancy is perhaps of the order of 30,000 people per annum. But on the whole, if we consider the total migration of Canada, we benefit, and if, by any chance, we imposed restrictions on emigration to the United States, well, we should expect the United States and the other countries to do the same thing toward Canada.
This is like people who think they can impose duties on foreign products and that other countries will not. We are not alone in this world.
Therefore if this population migration is to our advantage, we must not be among those who impose restrictions or make a useless fuss. The way for us to keep people in Canada is to create conditions such that they will want to stay. And, between us, if we were to find some advantage in moving to California, because it suits us, or if we had a family and so on, would we accept it if a state made all sorts of trouble for us because we were not leaving? Aside from states and the common interest, there is also the individual. Anyhow, let us say I do not find these restrictions very desirable.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question about mine labour. I understand that the mining industry is claiming that it is short to the extent of some 6,000 men to fill available jobs, and I know the minister has on several occasions said that one of the reasons for this lack of manpower is the fact that the accommodation and facilities provided in mining towns is not of a quality to keep immigrants to this country working in the mines in these areas.
I should like to ask the minister whether he has had any conversations with the mining industry about means and methods which the industry could use to hold the people that are brought in occasionally, and also to attract Canadians back to these mining areas.
DEBATES	5975
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, we have met with representatives of the Mining Companies Association to discuss this problem, but we believe that those companies can make an effort in order to train or retrain their staff. They might also strive to improve working conditions so as to attract workers.
At any rate, let us say that we are trying to avoid, by expanding an immigration which might create a problem in Canada at a given time, that some employers be prevented from assuming their responsibilities with regard to our workers and to the Canadian people.
This does not mean that all mining companies seek to have workers for less than they would pay Canadians. Conditions must not be created which would encourage them to adopt this practice.
For instance, a mine was closed down at Bell Island, Newfoundland, where there are close to 1,000 miners in the street. We do not know what will happen, but anyway if there are jobs in Canada, we must give them the preference, we must try and retrain them instead of importing people who are qualified and who eventually will become a burden to the Canadian economy.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question to ask the minister. In view of the fact that it was only about six weeks ago, or perhaps two months ago, that the minister said it was impossible to run the immigration department under its present policies and set-up-


Jean Marchand: I said that?


Robert Norman Thompson: I think it was on March 22. At least, it was reported that the minister said he had lost control over immigration policy and it was impossible to continue on that basis. I wonder how long the minister anticipates it will take, after bringing in the white paper, to introduce the new Immigration Act in the house?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: I think the report the hon. member has given of my statement is a little too broad. I did not say it was impossible to run the immigration and citizenship department; I said it would be impossible to keep control of immigration if we did not solve the problem of non-immigrants in Canada. My statement was not as broad as the hon. member has said. So I think this problem of non-immigrants in Canada will have to be
June 3. 1966

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration solved before we present the white paper on this subject. I think it will probably be done in a few weeks time, as soon as the agenda of the house allows for it.


Robert Norman Thompson: My question was whether you anticipate introducing legislation relating to this matter during this session of parliament.


Jean Marchand: I do not know, any more than any of the other hon. members of this house, exactly what will happen in the next few weeks or few months, but the intention is to introduce this legislation as soon as possible, and probably before the end of June.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have a question for the minister. I know that in the southeastern part of British Columbia many immigrants come from the United States and receive the status of landed immigrants. However, many of them have no intention of settling in Canada; they come here to take employment at very high wages for a year or two and, as they will tell you, they intend to go back as soon as the job is completed. What will be done to stop that situation? Those people are taking away jobs from Canadians and even from immigrants who, in some cases, wish to stay in this country.


Jean Marchand: I presume that some
Canadians do exactly the same thing in the United States. Whether you restrict the employment of United States citizens in Canada or the employment of Canadians in the U.S., you have to accept this competition. I think that if we prevent U.S. citizens from coming here and working under those conditions, the U.S.A. will probably retaliate by preventing Canadians from doing the same in the U.S.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would it not be better, to be quite frank about it, not to call them landed immigrants but to give them visitors' permits allowing them to work here for a year or two? There is a lot of humbug in this now, and I loathe humbug.


Jean Marchand: I do not know how you can discover the intention of a U.S. citizen who states he wishes to have the status of a landed immigrant and become a Canadian citizen. It is not easy.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question. Since our western agriculture has reached a stage where it is very technical and where there is a need for people who know something about operating very heavy expensive machinery such as

combines, big tractors and equipment to clear land, would it be possible to allow some of these people to take technical and vocational training in schools which are set up for this purpose at the present time? Our agricultural industry is very complicated at present and it will get more so as time goes on.


Jean Marchand: I think that farmers can profit by this training allowance bill which is now before the house and which provides for allowances up to $90 a week for training or retraining in primary industry such as agriculture, forestry and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: As agreed earlier today, the remaining items of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will stand. Is it the wish of the committee to proceed to the consideration of the estimates of another department?


Mr. Churchill:: In view of the fact that there are only four minutes left, I think perhaps we should call it a day.
Resolution (Citizenship and Immigration) adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


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

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $6,795,400.
5. To sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development programs, on terms and conditions approved by treasury board, and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitment of $60,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $25,000,000.
10. To advance the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing industry by supporting selected civil (non-defence) development projects on terms and conditions approved by treasury board and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $20,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $8,770,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
Industry-
L35. Loans, in the current and subsequent fiscal years and in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, to assist manufacturers of automotive products in Canada affected by the Canada-United States agreement on automotive products to adjust and expand their
June 3, 1966
[Stage Direction]
production; such loans to be made for the purpose of acquisition, construction, installation, modernization, development, conversion or expansion of land, buildings, equipment, facilities or machinery and for working capital; and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $30,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $8,600,000.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
1.	Departmental administration including the care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling and grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on Crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $21,330,800.
5. Payments, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for certain programs carried out under the Defence Production Act, (a) to assist defence contractors with defence plant modernization, and in connection with the establishment of production capacity and qualified sources for production of component parts and materials; and (b) for capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, by Crown plants operated on a management-fee basis or by Crown companies under the direction of the Minister of Defence Production, $4,765,000.
Supply-Items Passed
B-Emergency measures organization-
20. Administration and operation, $3,015,900.
25. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority to make recoverable advances not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of the governments of the provinces of the costs of joint programs, $2,199,000.
30. Grants to provinces and municipalities for civil defence and related purposes and authority to make recoverable advances in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, $5,400,000.
C-Crown companies-
Canadian Arsenals Limited-
40 Administration and operation, $446,000.
45. Construction, improvements and equipment, $357,400.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
1.	General administration including the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker; the promotion of programs for combatting seasonal unemployment; the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and the manpower consultative service, $3,913,500.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 6, 1966