February 9, 1961

LIB

John Whitney Pickersgill

Liberal

Mr. Pickersgill:

-and to the fact-

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

James Stanley Speakman

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speakman:

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

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Charles Edward Rea (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Deputy Chairman:

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

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

John Whitney Pickersgill

Liberal

Mr. Pickersgill:

Mr. Chairman, I will certainly not go beyond the scope of the debate as it has taken place up to now and I promise you that I will make no eulogies of former ministers or the present minister, or introduce any of the other extraneous things that have been introduced in practically every speech today.

I am dealing with a statement that was made by an hon. member, and I think by some other hon. members. I shall in a very few minutes deal with this statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, a statement that was not correct, and I am sure he did not mean to make a statement that was not correct.

Very substantial changes were made to the Pension Act and other veterans' legislation in 1957 by the former administration, and this pretence that there were no changes should not be allowed to continue.

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
?

James Ewen Matthews

Mr. Mailhews:

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

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Charles Edward Rea (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Progressive Conservative

The Deputy Chairman;

Perhaps the hon. member would please tell me what is his point of order.

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

William Harold Hicks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hicks:

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

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

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Webb:

I, too, would like to say a few words at this time on behalf of the veterans of Canada. In the riding I have the honour to represent there are 16 branches of the Canadian Legion. It has been my privilege on many occasions to visit meetings of these branches and attend their social gatherings, and may I say right now that there is no finer group of Canadians today than the members of the Canadian Legion. I have had heart to heart talks with many of these men and I know that if another war were to start tomorrow these same men would be willing to defend their country and loved ones again.

I cannot stress too strongly the importance of this measure. As has been stated already in this committee, I am sure that all the Canadian people will be proud to share their portion of the cost of this legislation.

May I now turn to another urgent question and one which I think merits immediate consideration, namely the need to give re-boards to many of our Canadian veterans? I know many veterans who are definitely entitled to a pension but who, because of previous decisions and red tape which is apparently insurmountable, have been unable to qualify. As a result, they have been deprived of justice. I am certain that consideration of this question is uppermost in the mind of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, a man who can and will speak from authority becauses of his own personal experience.

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Jacques Flynn (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

The Chairman:

Shall the motion carry? The Minister of Veterans Affairs.

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

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

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

John Whitney Pickersgill

Liberal

Mr. Pickersgill:

The minister does not close the debate.

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

I was hoping that perhaps I might, that is all.

(Translation):

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

V. Florent Dubois

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Dubois:

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to associate myself with previous speakers in commending the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill) for introducing this resolution to increase the pensions paid to disabled veterans and their dependents.

A great many veterans in the house have taken an active part in this discussion. I am proud of their stand, because they have really shown the interest they take in their former comrades at arms.

In my riding of Richmond-Wolfe there are four branches of the Canadian Legion; they are very active and look with particular care after the interests of our veterans. If one of them is in a plight, the local Legion branch hastens to his help and finds the necessary means of alleviating his sufferings or of helping him financially.

At this point, I should like to make a suggestion. Once this bill is passed by the house, there will be a splendid opportunity of directly informing veterans who live far from any branch of the Canadian Legion of the benefits which this government grants to those who fought overseas to save this Canada of ours from the horrors of war.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I congratulate the minister and all those who have taken part in the debate on this resolution.

(Text):

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
PC

Gordon Minto Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Progressive Conservative Party House Leader)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Churchill:

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

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
LIB

John Whitney Pickersgill

Liberal

Mr. Pickersgill:

I might do it on another occasion.

I4r. Churchill: There has been general acceptance of this resolution. The committee has expressed itself in favour of increases being made in pensions for disabled veterans and of certain other alterations being made to the act. Details in this respect will be before

Pension Act

us shortly, I hope. The debate, as it has proceeded, and the many cases which have been cited, have shown that the problem of veterans is a continuing one.

We still have a few survivors of the South African war. There are the veterans of the first world war, the veterans of the second world war and the veterans of the Korean war. Then, of course, there are those who have served or are serving in various posts throughout the world either under NATO or for the United Nations and who, though not necessarily engaged in conflict, are running certain risks with regard to health. Then, again, we must not forget those who suffer injury or disablement in the course of their regular duties in the armed forces. These eventually end up within the scope of this particular act in some instances because of the dangerous nature of the occupations in which they are engaged. Thus we have a continuing problem which must be faced and met by parliament, and which has been met by parliament over the years.

At the same time we have to recognize that the problems which continually arise are not easily solved. Example after example has been given to us in the course of the last two days of difficult, marginal cases where in the opinion of the hon. member speaking something further should have been done. So although the Pension Act has been in existence for a long time and although about 40 years of experience has been acquired with regard to dealing with veterans, in the year 1961 we are nevertheless still made aware of the problems of veterans.

We have not reached final solution with regard to some of these matters. I think it is commendable that so many members have taken an interest in this piece of legislation. It is commendable that the Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations have presented briefs to whichever government was in power, year after year, bringing to the attention of the government the problems of veterans and suggestions as to solving those problems.

The veterans' contribution, either through members here in the House of Commons, or through organizations across the country, has been of substantial assistance to our comrades in arms who suffered more than most of us during the course of their service overseas. We have a continuing obligation to them, which we can fulfil in part through our activity here in the House of Commons and through amending legislation where that appears to be necessary.

Time will not permit me, Mr. Chairman, to deal with some of the particular problems which were raised by many who spoke. The

Pension Act

problem raised by the members from Newfoundland, although it perhaps should have been decided long before this, is something that is rather new to me; it has come to my attention within the last few months and I have been looking into it. The standing committee on veterans affairs should look at this problem again this session.

The same thing applies to war veterans allowances. Although many members mentioned that that act is not under consideration at this moment, there is a danger of confusing people's minds in a discussion of the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Pension Act. Nevertheless, again the standing committee on veterans affairs can consider it and make suggestions. I will go this far and say that already commencing in November, I have instituted a study of the War Veterans Allowance Act to see what is required in the way of amendments thereto and to consider how quickly those amendments might be undertaken. I can make no promises; I am making no promises at this time. I am indicating that I have the matter under advisement and have instituted the necessary study, and I am making a study myself of the War Veterans Allowance Act.

With regard to other problems of veterans that were mentioned, such as merchant seamen, gallantry awards, South African veterans and so on, those are problems which we cannot discuss adequately when we are dealing with amendments to the Pension Act, but the standing committee on veterans affairs can look at these matters and bring them to the attention of myself and of the house. There will be another opportunity, of course, and that is when the estimates of the Depart-met of Veterans Affairs are before the committee.

There is one subject that was touched upon by most of the members who spoke in the course of the debate, and that is the application of the benefit of the doubt clause in the Pension Act. They did this, as I understand it, not in criticism of the pension commission, which is held in high regard by members of parliament. Over the years the pension commission and its predecessor, the board of pension commissioners, performed a very valuable service and an extremely arduous one in assessing the cases that came before them. I do not think anyone is critical in a serious way of the pension commission.

On the other hand, the members, as I assess what they have been saying during the last two days, think that the pension commission perhaps has not interpreted the benefit of the doubt clause in the way in which people have expected it to be interpreted. I think it has been said on many occasions that the benefit of

the doubt clause has entered into the consideration of the pension commissioners whenever they have had a case before them; but this is an old and continuing problem, and I hope that we can look at it again this year in the standing committee on veterans affairs and in consultation with the pension commission.

As hon. members have rightly pointed out, the commission is an independent body, and properly so. It derives its authority from parliament. It is not subject to the influence of the minister or of any member and makes its own decision and its own interpretation of the act which grants it authority. That being so, our job here as members of the House of Commons is to give assistance to the pension commission, either by amendment of the act under which they operate or by indicating to them the purpose and intent of parliament, as we understand it, with regard to their interpretation of the act. They may not accept our advice, but, on the other hand, I think it would not hurt for them to be aware of the understanding that members of parliament have with regard to this particular clause, clause 70, of the Pension Act. The clause has a long history. I have looked into that history. In 1930 a special committee sat on the problems of pensions and returned soldiers' problems and reported in 1930. The chairman of that committee was the Hon. C. G. Power. It was as a result of that committee's investigation that the benefit of the doubt clause was incorporated in the statutes. When the committee submitted its report, and I am quoting now from page 420 of the report of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems, it stated as follows:

In addition to the foregoing questions of organization and procedure the committee proposes the enactment of a general rule governing the commission, the pension tribunal and the appeal court, whereby all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favour of the applicant, who is to be given the benefit of the doubt, the rules stating that the applicant is to be relieved from the obligation of giving conclusive evidence in favour of his right, an obligation which it is in many cases quite impossible for him to discharge.

Before reaching this conclusion the committee heard from many eminent witnesses. Some of the examples that we have heard in the house today are similar to the examples given 31 years ago by people who appeared before that committee. General Sir Arthur Currie, who was then living, gave an example of a signaller, and I quote:

He was 37 years of age, big, strong and in perfect physical condition.

That is when he enlisted. General Currie then went on to describe the conditions under which he served in France, as follows:

Day and night, rain or shine, he must get out and keep the lines repaired. It is not a case of eight

or 10 hours a day, it is a case of 24 hours a day, and for days on end, always working in the battle area. His shelter at the best of times is nothing more than a thin sheet of corrugated iron or an old piece of tarpaulin; it may be nothing more than a shell hole in the broken and poisoned earth. Yet that man must be out all the time in all kinds of weather, wet to the skin, cold, lousy. If he does occupy a rude dug-out the chances are he has rats for companions. He is always in the battle area, shelled and bombed. Do you mean to tell me that those conditions will not affect adversely a man's health?

Then he went on to give the subsequent history of this chap who suffered certain pains and extreme nervousness and was considered to have sciatica for which he received a pension. Subsequently his case was looked at again and was diagnosed as spinal arthritis for which no permanent cure could be effected. In those bad days the board had to reach the conclusion that they could not recognize spinal arthritis as a pensionable disability, so the man lost his pension for sciatica and received nothing at all. The benefit of the doubt clause was incorporated into the act in order to remove that type of difficulty.

The second case, and the only other one I will give, was recalled to my mind by the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West who mentioned prisoners of war. There was an instance given in 1930 of a man who had enlisted at the age of 35. In front of Regina trench down on the Somme he received three machine gun bullets in the right leg, fracturing the tibia, and he also received one in the right shoulder. He lay in a shell hole under terrible conditions for four days. The only thing he had to drink was poisoned water in the shell hole. There were two other men in the shell hole with him and one died and the other went mad. This man was hit on Sunday and taken prisoner on the following Thursday. He was treated in Germany, had six operations, was repatriated through Switzerland and had one operation there and one in England. He was returned as a stretcher case to Canada and discharged in 1919 with a 15 per cent pension for the wound in his leg. During his time as a prisoner he developed a stomach condition. No record is available of his medical history while he was a prisoner of war. It is not available to anyone. He developed a stroke. It was decided by the federal appeal board that it was hemiplegia from which he suffered and they gave their orders as follows:

After consideration of the evidence and record the board finds that cerebral hemorrhage resulting in hemiplegia is not attributed to military service. The appeal is disallowed.

These are two examples from that year. Members today have given other examples from the present time. The benefit of the doubt clause was incorporated into the act

Pension Act

to make provision for men who could not provide documentary evidence as to the hazards they underwent when they were overseas, whether in the first war or the second, and many men in the second world war suffered just as grievously as men in the first war and suffered from exposure in just the same way. In 1930 that clause was introduced into the act and subsequently it has been amended on three occasions. It will not take me very long to put on the record the four versions of the benefit of the doubt clause so that anyone looking at this debate in the future will have a ready reference. In the 1930 statutes of Canada the section read as follows:

73. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant.

In 1946 an amendment was made, the section was renumbered 63 and it read as follows:

63. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall be entitled to draw and shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.

The change there was the addition of the words "and presumptions". In 1948 a further change was made, and section 63 of the 1948 statutes read as follows:

63. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant shall be entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which shall mean that it shall not be necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.

The change there was from "shall be entitled to draw" to "shall draw". Finally in 1952 another change was made. The section now is numbered 70 and it reads as follows:

70. Notwithstanding anything in this act, on any application for pension the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, which means that it is not necessary for him to adduce conclusive proof of his right to the pension applied for, but the body adjudicating on the claim shall draw from all the circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced and medical opinions, all reasonable inferences and presumptions in favour of the applicant.

The change there is the introduction of the words "is entitled to" instead of "shall be entitled to". I put these four versions on

KGUSjti OF COMMONS

Pension Act

the record for the benefit of those who are interested in this problem to show the effort that has been made from 1930 to 1952 to amend the benefit of the doubt clause so that it will be more suitable in the circumstances in which the board of pension commissioners has to apply it. My judgment is that no matter how frequently we amend the clause the question will still be determined on the basis of interpretation, and that is precisely what General Currie said in 1930. That is how it is applied.

All that I can say further in regard to this matter is that from the number of members who have spoken about the benefit of the doubt clause and from the interest that has been shown in the application of that clause the pension commissioners may reasonably reach the conclusion that parliament is seriously interested in-what shall I say-a generous application of the benefit of the doubt clause. In the ten years that I have been here I have heard no complaint about the pension commission being overgenerous in granting money from the treasury to applicants for pension, and I think they have been very sound in that regard. We are not asking them to lower the barriers and let anybody in. Bona fide cases, as they have considered them in the past, should be the ones on which the board will finally adjudicate, but in these bona fide cases where men have actually served and have suffered from their service I think it is the opinion of parliament that the benefit of the doubt clause should apply.

As some members have said, it certainly should apply in the case of the older world war I veterans. Many of these men, because of an independence of character that cynical people do not sometimes recognize, have refused over the years to accept a pension or to report for pension purposes and now that they are in their 70's they are beginning to find that it might have been wiser to report for examination in days gone by.

A very close friend of mine who has since died comes to my mind. He was a 30 per cent pensioner and should have been an 80 per cent pensioner all his life but he never gave up during the course of his experience from 1917 until just two or three years ago. He was granted an 80 per cent pension when he finally appeared at an advanced age before a board of examiners. He was typical of many men who served overseas in the first world war, men who simply would not admit that they needed assistance from anyone. These older veterans of the first world war cannot produce documents. There were no filing cabinets available on the field of action during the first world war, and I think it is the feeling of the committee that

those men who cannot produce evidence should have the benefit of the doubt. I say this, bearing in mind these two cases which were brought before the commission in 1930.

I argued this matter in the House of Commons in 1953, 1954 and before the estimates committee in 1955. I have argued at different times that the benefit of the doubt should be applied to first world war veterans who suffered from the effects of gas. Many men who suffered gas attacks in the first world war ended up in the hospital. Others got as far as the dressing station and were returned to their units, while still others did not report at all. Who is to say that years later the effects of this poison gas do not seriously destroy their physical functions? Medical opinion may say that there are no after effects of poison gas. Unless medical opinion will quite flatly state that, then I used to argue, and I would be inclined to argue now, that the pension commission should give the benefit of the doubt to a man who could show, through the action in which his regiment was engaged or through affidavits from his companions that he was subjected to the effects of poison gas.

This is just another example that relates to veterans of the first world war. As time goes on I think there will be less trouble with second world war veterans because the records have been much more adequately kept. The hon. member for Greenwood will recall that when he returned in 1918 or 1919, I suppose, like the rest of us, all he had to say was that he was A-l and he could get on board ship. If he did not say he was A-l he had to stay in England or France until further notice. This was the easy way, I think, of getting discharged in 1919. In 1946 it was not nearly as easy. You had to go through a very stiff medical board before you were released, so I think we will have less trouble in the future with the veterans of the second world war than we have had with those in the earlier conflict whose records were not complete.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman I would just say that the veterans of Canada should be pleased at the interest the committee has taken in this problem during the last two days. I believe the veterans of Canada are well represented here on both sides of the house. There has been a serious interest in this measure, and we have not engaged in more than just a mild flurry of political interchange. I would have loved to have taken part in one exchange that occurred a while ago, but I thought I would abstain and save it for some other occasion because we are not in a controversial field when we are dealing with veterans problems. I feel that all of us here, no matter what party

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration

we represent, have an interest m veterans. We recognize what they have done and the service that they have given to their country.

I feel it was a privilege to serve. This is not said very often by veterans, but now I am getting to an age where I think perhaps I can say some of these things. It is a privilege to serve. Many men who would have liked to have served were denied that privilege. I think veterans should recognize that fact and consider it a real privilege to have been physically fit and able to serve their country in time of distress. Nobody would think now of glorifying war or anything of that nature. We hope that our efforts during this twentieth century will result in permanent peace. At the same time we have to stand ready to cope with whatever perils may confront us in the future.

These men whom we have been considering during the last few days, the disability pensioners, the men who actually suffered, are the ones who have set the example for young Canada to follow. May we not forget them or their dependents during the course of their lives. They gave in the service of their country, and it is up to the country to play its part now. The Pension Act which we are amending will in part, and only in part, repay to our disability pensioners the debt that Canada owes them.

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink
?

Mr. Carier@

Mr. Chairman, I am not seeking to prolong the debate. I merely rise to express my thanks to the minister for the statement he has just made. I am grateful to him for the attitude which he has displayed toward the veteran, but in particular I want to express my appreciation for the statement which he made with respect to the veterans of Newfoundland, the forestry veterans, and the special problems that we have brought before him during this debate.

At the same time, I should like to express my personal regret that at this resolution stage preceding the introduction of the bill the two members from Newfoundland who sit with the government have not intervened in support of the representations which were made. We hope that they will do so on another occasion.

Resolution reported, and concurred in.

Mr. Churchill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-67, to amend the Pension Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Topic:   PENSION ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENTS INCREASING PAYMENTS, PERMITTING APPEALS, ETC.
Permalink

DEPARTMENT OP CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PC

Jacques Flynn (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

The Chairman:

Citizenship and immigration, vote No. 47-

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
LIB

John Whitney Pickersgill

Liberal

Mr. Pickersgill:

I wonder if I could rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, not in any contentious spirit at all. I should like to make exactly the same suggestion as I made last year. I wonder if the minister would be agreeable to having the administration item stood over until the end of the consideration of her estimates, on the understanding that no general debate would be resumed on the various branches of the department under the departmental administration item. It seems to me that during the last two years this course has made for more orderly debate.

If I may go further, I would express a preference and our preference would be to start with item No. 51, the immigration branch. We feel the greater part of the debate will be on that item and that course will probably reduce the debate on the citizenship items.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink
PC

Ellen Louks Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Progressive Conservative

Mrs. Fairclough:

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

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OP CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Permalink

February 9, 1961