Mr. Shaw:

May I first make reference to the observations of the hon. member for Vancouver East. Over the years I too have had a number of cases where individuals who have made applications for admission to Canada have been barred on what are generally referred to as security grounds. In all cases, as far as I am aware, there has been a refusal to give any indication of the nature of the charge, and I believe the reason given for this policy is that if the information is given then it will be the responsibility of the department to give the source of the information. If this were to happen then it is expected that the source of information would dry up.

Quite franky I think that is a pretty weak argument. I know of eases where relatives of Canadian citizens have made applications for admission to Canada and have been refused on security grounds. The Canadian relatives have said to me, "This is a reflection upon us. We cannot find out what the reasons were although we have made every effort." I certainly have made efforts myself in many of these cases. These relatives have said that it is a reflection upon them. They cannot find out what the reasons are although they have made every effort, and ip many of these cases I have made efforts myself. I think of one case in particular involving a Greek national who has at least one brother in this country. He made an application and was refused on security grounds.

4042 HOUSE OF

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Yet I have had in my possession no fewer than a dozen of the finest personal testimonials you could lay your hands on, even one signed by an ambassador from the United States. The application was not only refused but the individual and his relatives were unable to get one single solitary clue as to the reason for rejection.

I think it might not be a bad idea for me to suggest to the minister and his officials that first of all they go back and review every one of these cases. Certainly I think the time has come when we should give consideration to a change in policy. I for one have always said that this is our country and we have a perfect right to say who shall come here. I think we should maintain that right. But certainly I think we should be fair to those who make application for admission, more particularly when at times because of humanitarian or other reasons we drop all barriers and permit people to come here in large numbers, even without adequate medical examination. I am not objecting to that at all. Someone has already referred to the Hungarian situation. It was substantially a humanitarian question and I supported what was done at that time. But I do believe we should change the procedure with respect to the matter I have been discussing.

I wish to refer to a second point, and I am not certain that it falls under the jurisdiction of the Acting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Not very long ago I read a report in a newspaper and when I tried to find it later I could not locate it. That is not an uncommon thing. Sometimes you can search the pages of a newspaper a dozen times and all the time what you want is right in front of your eyes. The essence of the report was that a certain west European government, not a communist government, had declared that their nationals residing in Canada were subject to military service in their home country. Possibly there is not much one can say against that-

Mr. Shaw:

-but the report went further and said that even though these former nationals were Canadian citizens they were still subject to military service within that country. In the case of those who are Canadian citizens, regardless of the country from which they came, I think it is the duty of the Canadian government to object vigorously when a man has become a citizen of this country and is still hounded by the government of his former country on the ground that he is subject to military service

in that country. The inference is that if he dares to go back to that country he will pay the penalty as a consequence of not having answered the call.

As I say, I am not too familiar with the situation in the case of those who have not become citizens of Canada but even if their status here is only that of landed immigrants I still think that the Canadian government should raise strenuous objection. Of course, if they come from communist countries I presume any objection would do no good. Nevertheless I think there should be objection in that as well as in all other cases. After all, we do owe some protection to those who have come to our country as landed immigrants and more particularly in the case of those who have acquired Canadian citizenship.

Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, obviously one cannot be expected to match the display of vigour of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) and possibly, too, one might not be able to stir up the house to the same extent. Recently a certain Canadian newspaper, referring editorially to the official opposition in this house, that is, to the Liberal opposition, indicated that they had displayed during this present session an excessive fear of an election, and its performance, so that editorial stated, has been pathetic, inept, and in some cases, ridiculous.

I refer to that at this moment because of something which was said by a member of the official opposition this morning. When the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) was speaking, during at least at one

stage of his speech I could hardly believe my ears. It is known, of course, that the hon. gentleman was not speaking for the official opposition, but this is just one more indication that we have of the ineptitude, let us say, of the official opposition; its pathetic weakness not only in connection with consideration of thjs measure but also the ridiculousness of its attitude toward most issues. This morning the hon. member for Meadow Lake said, if I heard him correctly, that he would support this measure-Bill No. 237-in order that it might pass; in order that in turn the Canadian farmer might turn against the government, rise, as it were, in wrathful indignation and smite the government down. To me that is fantastic reasoning. Surely if the hon. member feels as he seemed to feel about the measure he should show that he has the courage of his convictions and oppose it. The position he took this morning was in my opinion in complete contradiction to the position taken by his leader last night when, in reply to a question, the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) indicated that if they were given an issue they would certainly oppose it even if it meant defeating the government. I am almost inclined to believe on the basis of what I have heard not only today but on previous days that if someone in one of the smaller opposition parties, or in the government, were to move a motion indicating that the government itself was not competent, et cetera, the official opposition would squirm out of voting for that motion on some such pretext as those we have heard in recent days.

Speaking in the House of Commons on Friday last, January 17, my colleague the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) said that mass meetings, lobbies and threatened marches had been the result of this legislation-

Mr. Shaw:

If the hon. member who made that remark is here long enough he will, perhaps, learn. The hon. member who interjected may have been the same hon. member -I do not know-who has been stirring them up. Mr. Speaker, if I had been answering that question I would say unequivocally that the government has been stirring them up. And one of the major actions which has resulted in their being stirred up is this Bill No. 237. Possibly I, with a few others, may be in a rather unique position as far as this stirring up is concerned-

Mr. Shaw:

Yes, even With amendments which we would expect to be brought in at some stage. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether the government has actually changed its whole attitude towards house committees. There is another thing that has happened that makes me wonder. The present Prime Minister, when a private member of the house, spoke of what he called the deplorable condition of agriculture. Believe me, I would not want any new Conservative member of the house to think that any language that any of us might use about agriculture would be exaggerated because the Prime Minister could think of the most brilliant words, phrases and clauses in describing the deplorable condition of agriculture and do so better than anybody else in the house. Of course, conditions now are not unlike what they were then and there is not too much prospect of them being different. With respect to the matter of the licking taken by Canadian farmers because of the spread between what the farmers get for what they produce and what the consumers pay the present Prime Minister said on March 12, 1956, as found at page 2021 of Hansard:

I think it will be agreed generally, for certainly it is the view of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the farm union organization of Canada and other farm organizations, that in every province the farmer today is caught in a ruthless and unrelenting squeeze between falling prices of farm products and rising costs of production. I am not in any way advancing an argument of depression when I say that the squeeze is of such a nature that, unless action is taken to meet it, it will, unless curbed, lead inevitably to bankruptcy of Canada's outstanding industry. That trend applies equally to the apple and the potato grower, the field crop producer, the dairy farmer, the livestock producer and the wheat farmer.

I read that for one specific reason. How short it makes Bill No. 237 fall of what

Agricultural Products-Price Stabilization

it should be in order to meet the very conditions which he described. I now have the passage to which I wish to refer with relation to the matter of committees. I repeat once again that I have seen considerable evidence that as far as the committees of the house are concerned there is great danger of our being treated in exactly the same way as we were treated by the previous government. With respect to this matter the Prime Minister had this to say in the house on March 12, 1956, as found on page 2026 of Hansard:

Next I mentioned in general the widespread disparity between the price the farmer receives and the price paid by the consumer. That disparity, that spread, deserves to be investigated. Many hon. members in this house want work to do. They would like to perform a worth-while work but have been denied the opportunity of making the contribution which their ability and training would permit. I would like to see the agricultural committee, when it is set up, undertake to make a preliminary investigation into those spreads. Then if after hearing evidence the agricultural committee finds it is circumscribed to such an extent as to be unable to come to a definite finding on the question which exercises the thinking of farmers all across the country today, I should like to see a royal commission appointed in order to investigate this spread and ensure a greater degree of equity to agriculture in assuring that the farmer would receive the largest possible percentage of the price ultimately paid by the consumer.

I am not forgetting for a moment, Mr. Speaker, the fact that a royal commission has been set up but this is what I am wondering about. In the light of that declaration why was the agricultural committee completely ignored and completely bypassed. This would have been a wonderful opportunity to put those members to work whom he seemed to feel did not have enough to do. I do not know who they are. I have been here quite a long time and I have always felt that I had a little bit more to do than I could handle. In any event, this suggests to me that unless we are extremely careful we will find that the committees of the house may well become almost useless to the House of Commons.

I do not intend to proceed further. Frankly, I had not intended to take quite this long although I did not promise anyone that I would not. I indicated a moment ago that it is not a matter of stirring up the farmers as far as members of parliament are concerned. The bill has stirred them up. The Minister of Agriculture is an Albertan, a very fine qualification in itself, but personally I feel that he has had to engage in a great deal of compromise in respect to the bill. In fact, I do not think he would have brought in the first draft and then moved to change it if he had been able to follow his own

wishes. If it had not been for certain difficulties, which maybe I only imagine, I am sure he would have brought in the present bill first, and I am still satisfied in my own mind that if the minister had had a reasonably free hand in drafting the bill we would have had a different bill and that the formula would have been in it.

I sometimes pass whatever idle moments I have by looking at the Conservative ranks and wondering which members it might have been who might have stood in his way. I think the Canadian farmer deserves something better and I am still hopeful that before the bill goes through we will have something better. My main reason for taking part in the debate is that I am still hopeful that as long as the bill has not been passed it will be amended and improved.

(Translation) :