1914-03-02

BOUNDARY FISHERIES REGULATIONS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I would Hike to ask whether the Minister of Marine has any information to give as to the fisheries regulations on boundary waters. I understand by a press despatch that the American Congress is proceeding to render those regulations effective. May I ask my hon. friend in what condition the matter now stands?


Hon. J. D. HAZEN:: I shall be very
glad to give my right hon. friend any information that I can offhand. My recollection is that a treaty was entered into in 1908 for the purpose of framing regulations with regard to *the fisheries in the waters contiguous to the international boundary line. Under that treaty the United States and Canada each appointed a representative, Professor Starr Jordan and Professor Prince, of the Fisheries Department, respectively. These gentlemen investigated the subject and drew up. certain regulations. It was provided by the treaty that when these regulations had beetn drawn up by the commission, the Government of each country should take the steps necessary to make those regulations effective. Accordingly, in

the session of 1910, the Parliament of Canada passed the necessary legislation. The President of the United States of that day also sent a message to Congress submitting the treaty for their approval. When the treaty came before the committee of the Senate, persons representing fishing interests in the states of Michigan and Washington came before the committee and entered their protest against the passing of such legislation unless the regulations were very considerably modified. The result was that the matter was not proceeded with by the United States with the expedition we thought necessary. We had negotiations with their authorities from time to time. Professor Starr Jordan withdrew from the commission, and Mr. Job. E. Hedges took his place. The elections also brought about a change of government. Before the last session of Congress we notified the United States that Canada, having regard to its own selfrespect, would have to withdraw from the treaty unless action were taken by Congress to make the regulations effective. At that time we were asked, very properly I think, to remember that the last session of Congress in the United States was called for one special purpose, to deal with the tariff, and that it would be impossible to get the treaty before that session for consideration. As a result we passed an Order in Council, which stated in effect that unless the United States approved that treaty by the first of March, 1914, we would feel compelled to resume our liberty of action. Without the slightest doubt, both President Taft and the present President have been very anxious to have the necessary legislation passed. After the present President came into office, Mr. Hedges resigned and Dr. Smith of Washington, an expert in fishery matters and connected with the United States Fishery Bureau, was appointed in his place. The information I now have is to the effect that the necessary legislation has passed the Senate and is now before the House of Representatives, that it will probably be passed by that House in the course of a few days. In view of that fact, while we said we would resume our liberty of action on the first of March, we thought it would be inadvisable and improper to stand to the strict letter of that conclusion. I think I am safe in saying, from the despatches I have received, that we may reasonably believe that the treaty will come into effect within the next few days.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that the Canadian Government has not consented to any modification of the regulations laid down by Professor Prince and Professor Starr Jordan.


John Douglas Hazen: As between Professor
Starr Jordan and Professor Prince, there were some modifications regarding lake Michigan which neither of them regarded as of very great importance and which they agreed to modify. We have taken the ground that the duty of each country was to accept the regulations as passed by the commissioners, but we have said that we are willing after the treaty becomes effective for the commissioners to consider fully the matters in question and if there are good and valid reasons why any change should take place, we are willing that they should be considered.	-



FISH TRANSPORTATION CHARGES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. SINCLAIR:: I desire to draw the
attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to an error in a speech made by him on the 2nd of February in regard to the transportation of fish. On that occasion he used the following language:
I may say that the movement inaugurated by my predecessor in office, and carried on with extensions and improvements since, has proved a great success. There has been an increasing amount of fish going forward, and at one-third of the charges prevailing under the arrangement made by the late Government.
This is a point that has caused some confusion and misunderstanding in the country. I find on making inquiries that the charges on fish are the same to-day as in 1911. The information I have is that the express charge has not been changed, and that the freight charge has not been changed is shown by an answer given by the minister to a question I asked after notice. The only change that has taken place is an increase in local freight rates on the Intercolonial.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not think that at this stage the hon. gentleman is in order in going into this matter. The information can be got by putting a notice on the paper. This is an inopportune time for such discussion.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to get the minister to make a correction, because letters are coming to members in regard to the matter, and the minister's statement is
clearly an error. I suppose he has been misled by his clerks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That may be so, but I take it that the minister would be more likely to give correct information if he had an opportunity of communicating with his department.


John Douglas Hazen: I think from what the hon. gentleman said, so far as I could catch it, that the mistake is in the reporting by the ' Hansard ' reporter. I suppose the hon. gentleman's quotation is from the unrevised ' Hansard.'


John Howard Sinclair: Yes.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think I made any such statement as the hon. gentleman quotes.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the hon. minister made the statement.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so. However, I will look 'the matter up, and if it was so stated in the unrevised ' Hansard,' it will certainly be corrected for the revised.


John Howard Sinclair: Then I am correct in
saying that it is a mistake?


John Douglas Hazen: I will look the matter up.



CANADIANS AT BISLEY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. MACDONALD:: Some weeks ago the Minister of Militia (Mr. Hughes) made a statement explaining the attitude of the Government, or of his department, in regard to sending a team to Bisley to represent Canada at the rifle shooting competitions there. I have seen in the press statements of what has transpired in the meantime. I would ask the minister to make a definite statement as to just what the position is to-day in this matter.


Hon. S. HUGHES:: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) was good enough to notify me of his intention to ask this question, and I have endeavoured to jot down the facts of the case. I may say, in the first place, that the matter is more or less misunderstood. The National Rifle Association has been from the outset strongly in favour of the position taken by Canada; but the War Office, which is unofficially associated with the National Rifle Association, but very closely associated, as it provides ammunition free and also officers for markers and range officers, has made it a condition of its continued support

in this manner that the rear aperture sight should not be used. That would rule out the Canadian rifle. On the 14th of February, the National Rifle Association held a meeting of the whole council and it was resolved, with practical unanimity, that the association should petition the War Office to remove its objectionable conditions for this year at all events. The War Office has yielded to the request of the association, and the restrictions are removed. The rear aperture sight will be allowed this year as usual, and, under these conditions, the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association, I understand, intends sending a team as usual.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 65, respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.

Mr. Beattie. Mr. Blondin in the chair.
Mr. NESBITT:: I desire to ask the promoter of the Bill if the company got the authority of the shareholders for going into the steamship business and land speculating business; or if there is anything in the original Bill requiring that they should have the authority of the shareholders for such action. I think it would be unwise that we should authorize any manufacturing corporation to go into these lines of business, entirely outside that for which it was originally incorporated, without having the authority of the shareholders. I should like to have that information before this Bill passes.


Mr. FOSTER:: The mover of the Bill is not present. If my hon. friend presses the objection it will have to stand.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I tnink it is a very important thing that every company should get the authority of its shareholders for changes of this kind.
Progress reported.



THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill no. 60, to incorporate the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada- Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 48, to incorporate the Peace River Tramway and Navigation Company- Mr. R. B. Bennett.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 82, respecting the Kettle Valley Railway Company-W. Green.

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

Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	What rules will prevail governing storage, mixing, treating, grading, substitution and milling in transit, of grain passing through the interior terminal elevators located at Saskatoon, Moosejaw, and Calgary, and what charges, if any, will be made for each service or privilege?
2.	Is it contemplated that grain stored in these elevators may be back-hauled through points of origin on through rates from such points of origin to ultimate destination? If so, under what restrictions and on what basis of charges, if any, for the back-haul?


George Eulas Foster: When these several elevators are more nearly approaching completion, and when the time comes for transactions with reference to them, all these matters will be taken up by the Grain Board. At present they have not been considered with a view to definite conclusion.


Mr. NEELY:: 1.	What places have applifcu ror the establishment therein of a Government interior elevator?
2.	At what points has it been decided to build these elevators?
3.	At what points have sites been purchased, from whom have they been purchased, and at what price in each case?
4.	What interior elevators have been completed, what are under construction, and what others are under contract to be constructed?
5.	What is the capacity of each elevator under contract, what is the cost in each case, and who are the contractors ?.
6.	What are the charges against grain passing through these elevators for handling, storage, insurance, etc. ?
7.	What arrangements have been made with the railways in regard to stop-over charges for cars at these elevators, and also with reference to freight charges on grain when reshipped from these elevators to Fort William, Port Arthur or other points?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Calgary, Alberta; Lethbridge, Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta; Prince Albert, Saskatchewan; Broadview, Saskatchewan; North Battleford, Saskatchewan; Melville, Saskatchewan; Wolseley, Saskatchewan; Portage la Prairie, Manitoba.
2.	Moosejaw, Saskatoon, and Calgary.
3.	Moosejaw, purchased from the municipality of Moosejaw; price $1. Saskatoon, purchased from the municipality of Saskatoon; price $1. Calgary, transferred from the Department of Militia and Defence.
4.	None; though Moosejaw and Saskatoon are under construction. No others are under contract to be constructed.

5.	The following shows the capacity of the elevators under construction, with cost and name of contractor:
, Moosejaw-working house, 500,000 bush.; storage house, 3,000,000 bush.; Saskatoon- working house, 500,000 bush.; storage house, 3,000,000; cost, $2,005,620; contractor, Barrs ettdVIcQueen Company, Limited.
6.	None of the above elevators are as yet completed.
7.	Answered by No. 6.


Mr. NEELY:: " 1. On what date was the Government terminal elevator at Fort William open for business?
2.	Since that date up to February 1, 1914, what quantities and grades of grain have been handled through the said elevator?
3.	What have been the gross earnings of this elevator during this period, and what the total cost of operation?
4.	What is the total cost of this elevator, including site, and what is its total capacity in bushels?


Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	16th October, 1913.
2.	Quantities and grades of the different kinds of grain received and shipped at the Government elevator, Port Arthur, from October 16, 1913, to January 31, 1914:
Receipts.
Wheat.-No. 1 Hard, 18,093; No. 1 Northern, 1,428,148; No. 2 Northern, 937,592; No. 3 Northern, 240,112; No. 4, 56,151; No. 5, 15,411; No. 6, 9,207; feed, 168; rejected, 95,985; smutty, 187,804; no grade, tough, 163,596; A.R.W., 40,914; sundries, 55,659; total, 3,248,840.
Oats.-No. 1 C.W., 3,436; No. 2 C.W., 374,563; No. 3. C.W., 262,764; Ex. No. 1 feed, 16,855; No. 1 feed, 7,694; No. 2 feed, 84,994; rejected, 5,817; no grade, tough, 90,244; condemned, 3,210; sundries, 341; total, 849,918.
Barley.-Ex. No. 3 C.W., 642; No. 3 C.W., 142,868; No. 4 C.W., 77,141; feed, 5,198; rejected, 33,995; no grade, tough, 9,791; sundries, 1,583; total, 271,218.
Flax.-No. 1 N.W.C., 2,430,132; No. 2 C.W., 109,858; No. 3 C.W., 10,086; rejected, 5,525; no grade, 18,484; condemned, 483; sundries, 4,681; total, 2,579,249.
Rye.-No. 2 C.W., 981.
Total Receipts.
Bushels.
Wheat	 3,249,840
Oats	 849,918
Barley	 271,218
Flax	 2,579,249
Rye	 981
Shipments.
Wheat.-No. 1 Hard, 13,605; No. 1 Northern, 840,591; No. 2 Northern, 672,489; No. 3 Northern, 131,384; No. 4, 44,374; No. 5, 10,460; No. 6, 6,900; feed, 17; rejected, 92,877; smutty, 115,876; no grade, tough, 150,690 A.R.N., 40,683; sundries, 28,699; total, 2,148,645.
Oats.-No. 1 O.W., 1,635; No. 2 C.W., 313,695; No. 3 C.W., 225,695; Ex. No. 1 feed, 14,897; No. 1 feed, 5,761; No. 2 feed, 71,594; rejected, .5,536; no grade, tough, 86,295; condemned,-; sundries, 1,760; total, 726, 868.
Barley.-Ex. No. 3 C.W.,-; No. 3 C.W., 111,015; No. 4 C.W., 70,728; feed, 5,024; rejeoted, 34,313; no grade, tough, 9,748; sundries,-; total, 230,828.
Flax.-No. 1 N.W.C., 2,086,779; No. 2 C. W., 71,678; No. 3 C.W., 6,691; rejected, 2,691; no grade, 1,510; sundries, 3,050; total, 2,171,804.
Total Shipments.
Bushels.
Wheat	 2,148,645
Oats	 726,868
Barley	 230,828
Flax	 2,171,804
Total	 5,278,145
3.	Gross earnings, $61,394.56; cost of operation, $33,517.73.
4.	Cost, $1,372,000.23; capacity, 3,250,000 bushels.


COLONEL, J. LYONS BIGGAR.
Mr. GARROLL:: 1.	Was Colonel J. Lyons Biggar sent hy the Department of Militia and Defence to Europe last year? If so, on what business?
2.	Did Colonel Biggar make arrangements with the British Government for the sale of remounts for the British army? If so, what were these arrangements, and how far have they been acted on?
3.	Has Colonel Biggar been sent by the Minister of Miltia and Defence to Europe again this winter? If so, upon what business and is the trip at the expense of the Government?
4.	Is there any correspondence in the Department of Militia and Defence in connection with Colonel Biggar's present absence from Canada? If so, will the minister produce said correspondence ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	Colonel J. Lyons Biggar requested permission to visit England last year in order to study the remount question. He was permitted to go on that business.
2.	No.
3.	No, and the trip is not at. the expense
Total
6,950,206

of the Government. His leave of absence has been extended one month only.
4.	Yes, correspondence herewith filed with the Clerk of the House.


TOBIQUE INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Has any person other than B. Frank Smith out green logs off the Tobique Indian reserve since March 31, last? If so, who?
2.	Have such person or persons been prosecuted for such cutting?
3.	What penalty was imposed, and is Chief Lockwood now in jail at Andover, N.B., for such cutting?
4.	Has B. Frank Smith been prosecuted for cutting green logs without authority? If not, why not?
5.	Was the said B. Frank Smith the Conservative candidate in the elections 19 OS and 1911?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1 and 2. No.
3.	Chief Lockwood, Indian, who is not a person as defined by the Indian Act, was prosecuted for cutting green timber without authority, under section 128 of the Indian Act; he had removed seizure marks from logs which had been placed under seizure. As he admitted cutting 100 trees, he was fined $2,000 as provided for under section 127 of the Indian Act, and, in default of payment, received the minimum sentence of thirty days imprisonment. He is now in jail if the term of his sentence has not expired.
4.	No. Mr. Smith has agreed to settle the claim against him.
5.	Yes.


DORVAL MILITIA LAND PURCHASE.
*Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Was an Order in Council passed in the year 1912 authorizing the Minister of Militia to expend the sum of $180,000 in the purchase of land for military purposes at or near Montreal?
2.	If so, what is the date of said Order in Council?
3.	Did the Department of Militia receive from their legal agents a certificate of title of the land purchased at Dorval from William Thomas Rodden et al. ?
4.	If so, what is the date of said certificate?
5.	Was a cheque issued to William Thomas Rodden et al for the sum of $180,000, or any other amount, in payment of said Dorval military property? If so, what is the date of issue and the date of payment of said cheque?
6.	On what date was the deed of the said Dorval military property executed by the vendor?
7.	When was said deed registered in the Montreal registry office?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	May 23, 1912.
fMr. S. Hughes.]
3.	Yes.
4.	June 24, 1912.
5 (a). Yes. A cheque for $180,COO in favour of Wm. T. Rodden and the agents of the Department of Justice, Messrs. Fair and Cameron, was sent to the Department of Justice, at their request, on the 17th of June, (b) This cheque tvas deposited to the credit of Messrs. Fair and Cameron, agents of the Department of Justice, on the 24th of June, 1912.
6.	June 24, 1912.
7.	June 25, 1912.


LEVIS QUARANTINE STATION.
*Mr. CARVELL:: 
Mr. BURRELL:: 1 and 2. By an Order in Council under date of the 21st of November, 1913, the action of the Minister of Agricuiture in purchasing land to the value of $32,750 for the purposes of an animals' quarantine station at Levis, P.Q., was approved.
3 and 4. The title was searched by Mr. Alphonse Bernier, K.C., of Quebec city and certified satisfactory by him to the Depait-ment of Justice on the llfh day of July, 1913.
5.	A cheque was issued to the joint order of Messrs. Michel Lawrence Dohen and Onesime Audet, the legal agent, for the sum of $32,750. The date of issue was the 22nd July, 1913, and the date of payment the 4th August, 1913.
6.	29th day of July, 1913.
7.	31st day of July, 1913, at the registry office for the county of Levis, P.Q.


DREDGE CANADA.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What was the date fixed for the delivery of the boiler for the dredge Canada?
2.	When was it delivered by the John Inglis Company?

3.	Was the delivery made within the required time or was the time for delivery extended?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	April 1, 1913.
2.	April 17, 1913.
3.	No; boiler should have been delivered in eleven weeks alter notification.


ST. LAWRENCE PILOTS' AGENT.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Who replaced Ulric Thibaudeau as agent for the pilots between Quebec and Montreal, and what is his salary?
2.	What are the names of the other employees connected with the same office and what are their respective salaries?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	J. L. Frenette replaced Ulric Thibaudeau at $75 per month. Mr. Frenette was subsequently replaced by F. J. Boulay at $1,100 per annum.
2.	J. L. Frenette is now employed as day watchman and messenger at $60 per month. Prudent Beaudet is employed during season of navigation at $40 per month.


PORTNEUF LIGHTKEEPER.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Who was the inquiring commissioner of the investigation held in the month of January last at Quebec, in the case of Josephine Rodrigue, lightkeeper at Portneuf, county of Portneuf?
2.	What salary has been paid to such commissioner?
3.	What indemnity have the witnesses been promised?
4.	What is the complete list of witnesses, and have they been paid?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	L. O. Beaubien, Esq.
2.	The remuneration allowed the commissioner for this investigation was $108.75.
3.	The department has no information.
4.	Elisa Paquin; Adelard Page, J. O. Paradis, L. Frenette, J. Lavoie, Eug. Page, Ulric Frenette, Armand Godin, Geo. Hardy, Jos. Rodrigue, Malvina Drolet. Witnesses' taxes, transportation and expenses were paid to the commissioner. Two of the witnesses have advised the department that they had not been paid and inquiry is being made into the matter.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Turriff.-For a copy of all irrigation leases issued since 1st of October, 1911.
Mr. Turriff.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams or other correspondence in connection with the seizure of eleven (11) horses belonging to Mr. John M. Ferguson, Kaleida, Manitoba, on or about the 2Sth day of March, 1912.
Mr. Middlebro.-For a return giving the following information, as far as may be available, respecting the constitution of Upper Chambers or Senates within the British Empire and in foreign countries, and especially such information in respect of the self-governing dominions and of foreign countries possessing a federal system of government:
1.	As to the method of appointment, whether by executive authority or by election by the people, or otherwise.
2.	As to the term of appointment, whether for life or for a term of years, or otherwise.
3.	As to reappointment or re-election, and generally as to the filling of vacancies occasioned by death or otherwise.
4.	As to qualifications, whether by age, residence, possession of real or personal property or otherwise.
5.	As to limitation of the membership, and as to the numerical relation of the membership to that of the Lower House.
6.	As to provisions for dissolution, appeal to the electorate, conferences or additional appointments in case of disagreement between the Upper and Lower Houses.
7.	As to the operation of the various systems in the several dominions and countries mentioned, and in what respect defects or difficulties have made themselves manifest.
8.	All other relevant information respecting the constitution and status of such Upper Chambers.
Mr. Ross.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, telegrams, evidence, reports, papers and documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, or any other department, relating to the dismissal of Samuel Diclcson, postmaster, at Seaforth, Ontario, and if there was an investigation, the names of the investigator and witnesses, with a copy of the evidence and of all letters, papers, petitions, recommendations, or other documents connected with the appointment of Mr. Dickson's successor.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a copy of all correspondence, papers, documents, evidence, reports, telegrams, etc., relating to the dismissal of John A. L. McLellan, late lightkeeper at Fish Island, Prince Edward Island.
Mr. Neely.-For a copy of all rules, orders and regulations, etc., affecting the handling of grain made by the Grain Commission to date, and of any changes made in elevator charges and terms, if any.
Mr. Neely.-For a return showing: (1) The quantities of wheat, by grade, received into the terminal elevators at Fort william and Port Arthur, from the date of the weigh-up in 1910 to date of weigh-up in 1911, the same for an<j the same for 1912-1913 ; (2) the quantities, by grade, delivered by each of the said elevators during the same periods: (3) the average or shortage, as the case may be, of each grade in each of the said elevators, as shown by the said weigh-up in each of those above-mentioned periods; (4) the date of the weigh-up in each case.
Mr. C. A. Wilson.-For a return showing all the buildings, houses, offices and immovables, occupied by the federal Government in Montreal, for the use of the various departments and services of each branch of the Administration, together with the following information in each case: For what department and for what service ; where situated, street and number there-
[Stage Direction]
of; whether Government property or under lease; in the latter ease, the length of the lease, the rent per annum and also the other charges that may be imposed upon the Government.

Hon. FRANK OLIVER moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents relative to the Immigration of Asiatics, including Hindus, Japanese and Chinese which have a bearing either directly or indirectly upon the Order in Council passed by the Government during December, 1913, restricting immigration into the Province of British Columbia.
He said: Of all f)he subjects which come before this House for consideration, that of immigration is, to my mind, the most important. It has to do not only with present conditions, but with conditions of the future without limit. For that reason, it appears to me that, in the interests of 'this country as it is to-day, and, even to a greater extent in the interests of the country as it is to be, the subject of immigration requires the best and closest consideration that the Government and Parliament can give it. It is a question of great variety; it has many bearings, 'but it is with the purpose of getting information with regard to only one of those bearings that I have moved this resolution.
The subject of European immigration to Canada is important, but the subject of Asiatic immigration to Canada is vital, and it is in regard to Asiatic immigration 'that 1 ask for this return. It is possible-indeed it is probable-that the importance of this side of the immigration question is not fully appreciated throughout the whole of Canada. In the minds of many, it is believed to be merely a labour question. I will admit that the labour feature of the question is important, but I maintain that it is the less important part of it. As the civilization of the West differs radically from the civilization of the East, it will be agreed that if western or European civilization is to prevail on this continent, it must be without the influence of Asiatic civilization. That we are to have the full development of European civilization, is, I take it, the ideal of the great majority of the people of Canada. The people who are strongest in their professions of willingness to share the advantages of this continent with all the peoples of the world are the ones who insist that our ideals are the ideals of European civilization. And yet it is a fact that in proportion to the extent to which Asiatic civilization is introduced into this continent, just to that degree, of necessity, 
European civilization loses ground. I am not suggesting that there is not Asiatic as well as European civilization, but I do in-isist that the two are radically different and cannot exist together and maintain their own characteristics. It is, of course, evident that if Canada should become subject by conquest to an Asiatic country, Asiatic civilization would thereby and thereupon become predominant. There are conquests other than those achieved by force of arms. There is industrial conquest, there is commercial conquest and there is the conquest that necessarily must occur if a large preponderance of the population of any country belongs to any particular kind or class of civilization. If we introduce into Canada a larger number of people having an Asiatic civilization than we have of people of European civilization, then Asiatic civilization 'becomes dominant at the expense of European civilization. Is such a thing possible? The question only needs to be asked to answer itself. On the other side of the Pacific ocean are three great countries, all civilized, all full of vitality, with populations running, not into the thousands or tens of thousands, or millions, but into the hundred of millions, civilizations that are developed to a very high degree, carried by a people of marvellous strength of purpose and marvellous ability along many lines. On our side of the Pacific ocean, on the western coast of Canada, we have a length of coast line of hundreds of miles, and behind that coast line a country absolutely adapted to the requirements and conditions of life of those hundreds of millions on the other side of the Pacific, suitable to them in every particular, almost vacant, ready for occupation by whoever, first comes to occupy it. The available portion of the province of British Columbia is larger than the portions available for actual development of the five eastern provinces of Canada. Throughout the greater part of that area that province is absolutely vacant, awaiting population, and hundreds of millions of people on the other side of the Pacific ocean are looking for an outlet.
It is a mere matter of whether those who are to-day in charge of the administration of the affairs of Canada are prepared to permit it or not, whether or not we are to have the establishment of an Asiatic civilization, at any rate on our western or Pacific coast. The process has already begun. We have had an immigration from China for many years. It is increasing rather than decreasing. We have had an immigration

from India, which came almost as quickly as a thunderbolt and established many thousands of Hindus in the province of British Columbia before means could be taken to check that immigration. We have several thousands of Japanese also in British Columbia. They came there within a very few years, attracted by the conditions; and the only reason that we have not today many thousands of Japanese, many thousands of Hindus, many thousands of Chinese more than we have in that province is because the Government of the day took measures to prevent their coming into the country. It is not necessary to discuss at great length the means which were taken, but in the case of the Chinese a head tax of $500 was imposed. In the case of the Japanese an amicable arrangement was made with the Japanese Government whereby they did not permit their people to come to Canada beyond a certain number each year. In the case of the Hindus still other means were taken, with the result that the immigration of Japanese was practically stopped, the immigration of Hindus was actually stopped, and although the immigration of Chinese was not stopped there is no doubt it was much less under the arrangement that was made than it would helve been had no head tax been established.
I shall not argue the point at great length, but the position taken by the late Government was that Canada was '	mistress in her own house,
4 p.m.	that the people of Canada,
having been charged with the responsibility of the establishment of civilization throughout this great area, were entitled, nay, the duty was laid upon them, to see that that civilization was a European civilization, and that whatever measures were necessary to attain that end those measures were taken not only of right but of right with due authority.
Some time last fall the regulations or administration of the law for the exclusion of Asiatics was put to the test in British Columbia, and on the decision of the Chief Justice of that province, it was found to be at fault. Had matters remained as they were on the decision of the Chief Justice, the protection that had hitherto existed against the coming of people from India would have ceased. The Government thereupon provided a regulation by Order in Council which is the subject of the resolution that I have offered to the House, and which, while it carried out the purpose and policy immediately required, was of 78
such a character as to call for some consideration. The Order in Council is dated the 8th of September, and reads as follows:
His Royal Highness the Governor General in Council, under and in virtue of the provisions of subsection 3 of section 38 of the Immigration Act, 1909, 1910, Edward VII; and in view of the present overcrowded conditions of the labour market in the province of Britsh Columbia, is pleased to make the following order.
From and after the date hereof and until after the 31st of March, 1914, the landing at any port in British Columbia hereinafter specified of any immigrant of any of the following classes or occupations, namely, artisans, labourers, skilled or unskilled, shall be and the same is hereby prohibited.
Then follows a list of ports of entry in the province of British Columbia at which the landing of such immigrants is prohibited, practically covering every port along the international boundary line and on the Pacific coast. This certainly was an effective way of preventing the immigration of Hindus. But it had some further effects that seem to me to be hardly as desirable. One effect was that, while it prohibited the coming into British Columbia of white artisans and white skilled or unskilled labourers, it permitted the entrance of Chinese without more let or hindrance than already existed. This, it seems to me, was a very undesirable condition. By keeping out white labourers we were making room for Chinese, and, while it is certainly desirable that Asiatic immigration should be excluded whether it belongs to one Asiatic country or another, I think it is scarcely satisfactory that we should take measures that will not only exclude Hindus and white people, but by doing so leave more room and opportunity for Chinese, who, I am sure, are no more desirable to have in occupation in this country than Hindus. I am anxious to know by what process of reasoning the Government arrived at the conclusion that this was the best way of dealing with the question. I was informed in answer to a question that I asked in the House, that this regulation was not enforced against Japanese who had left their country before the 27th of December. I am not clear by what authority the Department of Immigration, having before them an Order in Council such as this absolutely prohibiting every class of artisans and skilled and unskilled labourers coming into British Columbia, by what authority they admitted Japanese who had left their own country before the 27th December. That would permit the landing of Japanese in



British Columbia up to possibly the middle or end of January. As to the immigration of Chinese, we find that 6,817 entered in 1911; 7,146 in 1912; and in the 11 months of 1913, 5,988. That is to say, although it was necessary to prohibit the coming in of white labour in view of the overcrowded condition of the labour market in the province of British Columbia-according to the statement of the Order in Council- the inflow of Chinese labour was as great as it had been in previous years, when the general demand for labour was at a maximum. I think that is evidence that the order, while it may have been effective against Hindus, was certainly not effective against Chinese.
As to why this very remarkable order was passed: The occasion, as I understand it, was that a number of Hindus had landed and were refused admittance under the regulations as already existing. They had appealed to Chief Justice Hunter of British Columbia. A writ of habeas corpus had been issued; the Chief Justice had given a decision that the regulations passed by Order in Council, under which it was proposed to exclude these people, not being in accord with the statute, were therefore invalid, and the people had to be admitted. That meant that the bars were down, and that these people could come in freely as against the regulations then existing. Very properly the department amended the regulations in accordance with the judgment of Chief Justice Hunter. Having done so, it seems to me that there did not exist the necessity for passing this order of December 8, which excludes all labour except Chinese, and Japanese up to say the middle of January. If there was a necessity for amending the regulations as they were amended, there was every reason to believe that after the amendments were made the regulations would be effective, and that there was no necessity for such a remarkable order as this of December 8, 1913.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Would you briefly explain the nature of the amendments?


Frank Oliver: It is very hard to explain them. To the layman they would appear to be of the most trivial character^ Perhaps I may read the original and the amendments. One regulation applied to what was called the continuous passage and the other referred to the $200 requirement. The old regulation in regard to the $200 was dated May 9. 1910. and it read:

No immigrant of Asiatic origin shall be permitted to enter Canada unless in actual and personal possession in his or he.- own right of ?200 unless such person is a native or subject of an Asiatic country in. regard to which special statutory regulations are in force or with which the Government of Canada has made a special treaty or convention.
Now, that was amended to read as
follows:
From and after the date hereof no immigrant of any Asiatic race shall be permitted to land in Canada unless such immigrant possess in his own right money to the amount of at least two hundred dollars. Provided that this regulation shall not apply to any person who is a native or subject of an As'atic country as to which special statutory regulations inconsistent with this regulation are in force, or with which there is in operation a special treaty, agreement or convention binding the Government of Canada if the provisions of this-regulation be inconsistent with the stipulations of such treaty, agreement or convention.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER- What is the difference ?


Frank Oliver: As I said, to a layman the difference seems trifling. I will later give the judgment of the Chief Justice explaining his reasons for his conclusion. However, the decision of the Chief Justice was accepted, and the amendment was made to accord with his views. So, it would appear that whatever weakness there had been in the law was thereby cured. The other regulation was dated Monday, 9th May, 1910, and read:
From and after the date hereof the landing in Canada shall be and the same is hereby prohibited of any immigrants who have come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which they are natives or citizens, and upon through tickets purchased in that country or purchased and prepaid in Canada.
That was amended to read as follows:
From and after the date hereof the landing in Canada shall be and the same is hereby prohibited of any immigrants who have come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which they are natives or naturalized citizens, and upon through tickets purchased in that country or purchased or prepaid in Canada.
As in the former case, the differences appear to be trifling, but they were sufficient in the opinion of the Chief Justice to warrant him in declaring the original regulation invalid and not in accord with the conditions of the Act; and on his order the immigrants- were released. The Government thereupon, as I say, undertook to cure the weakness by passing the new regulations; but, in addition, they passed the regulation of 8th December which promarch 2,1914
hibited the immigration of any classes of people except the Chinese and Japanese.
As this is a matter of considerable importance and one in which a good many members take great interest, it might be as well for me to put on ' Hansard ' the judgment of Mr. Chief Justice Hunter. I am given to understand that the document from which I quote gives the full text of this decision. It is as follows:
As to four of the Hindus, their counsel, Mr. Bird, abandoned proceedings so that the question now concerns the other thirty-five. The main dispute was to the validity as to the Orders in Council known as P.C. Nos. 926 and 920, passed in May 9, 1910.
At the outset, Mr. Bird vehemently urged that Parliament knew that it was impossible for Hindus to come to a Canadian port by a continuous journey and that it had employed a subterfuge to place a ban on Hindus as a race and that therefore the court ought to be astute if possible, to defeat the alleged injustice. As to this it seems necessary once more to point out that in dealing with Acts of Parliament the court is not concerned with questions of expediency or good faith, but only with their validity and interpretation.
To consider the two Orders in Council as to No. 926 it is objected that the expression
*	Asiatic origin ' is used wherever the statute uses Asiatic race. It is obvious that the word ' origin ' includes more than the word ' race.' A person born in India of British parents, domiciled there, would be of Asiatic origin, but not of Asiatic race.
The prohibition in the Order in Council therefore exceeds that contained in the statute itself and is accordingly ultra vires.
Again, the Order in Council requires the immigrant to have $200 in his own right in actual or personal possession, whereas the statute does not require that the money shall be in actual and personal possession. If an immigrant had the money in his own right, in a Victoria bank at the time of his arrival, he would satisfy the requirements of the statute, but not those of the Order in Council. The Order in Council i3 therefore bad on this account. Other objections were also urged, but it is unnecessary to deal with them.
As to the Order in Council No. 920, this Order in Council has already been declared invalid by Mr. Justice Morrison in Rahim's case, 16 B.C.R., 471, on the ground that it omitted the qualifying word * naturalized ' before the word ' citizen ' in comformity with the amending Act, and no doubt, as he says, the fact of the change in the statute, and I might add that this amending was assented to only four days before that Order in Council was passed.
Mr. Taylor, however, urged that the Order in Council might be upheld in part, so far as regards the requirements by the natives. The difficulty is that the word 'native' is used as a noun in the Order In Council and would therefore include persons of British race bom in India, which it is difficult to suppose Parliament intended, whereas in the statute it is used as an adjective qualifying the word
*	citizen ', and it is obvious that the expression ' native ' includes more than the expression ' native citizen.'
The court, having concluded that the persons detained were entitled to their discharge on these grounds, it was then urged by Mr. 781
Taylor that they were also held because of misrepresentation, but the order for deportation does not state that this was the reason for the detention. The only reason so-called, assigned, which could have any bearing on this matter is given in section 33. This section gives a number of subsections defining certain Acts, and I do not think it is a proper compliance with the Act, to refer generally to the section in this way as a reason for deportation.
Common justice requires, and I' think Parliament so intended, that when a person is ordered to be deported out of the country, the reasons for so doing should be clearly stated, in order that he might at least know what was the reason and in any event a reason stated in such a fashion would not constitute a good return to a writ of habeas corpus.
Reference was also made to section 23, which purports to limit the jurisdiction of the court to interfere with deportation proceedings. It is, however, especially enacted that such restriction applied only to proceedings 'had under the authority and in accordance with the provisions of this Act ' and it would indeed be strange to find that the doors of the court were shut against any person of any nationality, no matter that the Act complained of might be.
I had not intended placing this lengthy document on ' Hansard,' but perhaps it is as well to have it on record in the proceedings of the House. I am not concerned with the merits of Chief Justice Hunter's decision. As I have said, to the layman his objections would appear trifling, but it would not do for me to suggest that the judgment was not fully warranted by the facts and by a proper interpretation of the words used.
The point I wish to come to, however, in dealing with this decision and the subsequent action of the Government resulting from it, is that there seems not to have been a continuity of policy on the part of the Interior Department in regard to these matters. The final paragraph of Chief Justice Hunter's decision relates to section 23 of the Immigration Act, which reads as follows:
No court, and no judge or officer thereof, shall have jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with any proceeding, decision or order of the Minister or of any board of inquiry, or officer in charge, had, made or given under the authority and in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the detention or deportation of any rejected immigrant, passenger or other person, upon any ground whatsoever, unless such person is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile.
This is a provision of the Act of 1910, and when it was before Parliament it was the subject of discussion and consideration, and it appears in the Act with the unanimous consent of the Parliament of that day. It will be observed that the purpose of the section was to avoid exactly what took


Rodolphe Lemieux: We have all listened with interest to the very able address delivered by my hon. iriend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and the House must be grateful to him for having brought to its attention this most important question. I may say at once that, whilst I may disagree with him on some features of the problem of Asiatic immigration, yet on the whole I agree with his conclusions. The question, as he himself has said, has far reaching effects, not only in Canada but in the British Empire of which Canada is a component part. We all know that this question of Asiatic immigration is causing at the present moment grave concern in the various over seas dominions, notably in Australia, in New Zealand and in South Africa. In Australia and New Zealand the Asiatic races are considered as the most imminent peril, and it is admitted that the action taken by Australia and New Zealand in matters of naval defence, namely in the establishment of local navies in those commonwealths, was due to the apprehension that some day those dominions might be invaded by the Asiatic races.
As regards South Africa, it was only a few weeks ago that we were the witnesses -distant if you will-of a struggle between-the Hindu residents and the Government of the Union.
We know that as a result of the drastic legislation passed by the Union Government passive resistance was offered by the Hindu subjects of South Africa, and the troops had to be called so as to maintain

peace and order in the veldt. This question of Asiatic immigration is therefore causing grave concern in the dominions and in the mother country, and Canada is also highly interested in the settlement, one way or another, of that problem. This matter affects our future, and especially the future of Britisn Columbia. Up to November 30, 1912, the number of Oriental immigrants coming into British Columbia was 42,754. Of that number 22,240 were Chinese, 14,364 Japanese and 5,147 Hindus I do not know whether these figures are correct, but I presume they are approximately so. Speaking about Canada's great task in this matter, Mrs. Donald Shaw, in the last issue of the National Review, uses the following language:
Going farther west to British Columbia, we met with the Oriental. Every ninth person in British Columbia is an Oriental; every fifth male in the population of British Columbia is an Oriental. There are the Hindus, the Chinese and the Japanese-all of them racial and antagonistic to the European and the American.
Right here it might be well to recall in a few words the action of the Government previous to the recent decision of Chief Justice Hunter in respect of the Asiatic status in British Columbia.
Mr. GEORGE E. FOSTER: Did I understand my hon. friend to say that 40,000 was the total number of Orientals who had arrived?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Has my hon. friend any definite idea as to how many there are now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. KNOWLES:: When the hon. member says the year 1913, does he mean the fiscal year closing March 31, 1913, or the calendar year ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I took the figures from the last report.


William Erskine Knowles: I understand that the treaty came into effect only in April last.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but the treaty was still in force. I may say that the figures obtained from the Japanese report differ very slightly from these. As long as this treaty works well, as long as our trade with Japan increases and as long as the Japanese live up to their agreement as regards immigration, certainly neither this Government nor any other Government will bar the Japanese out from Canada.
But the problem witn the Hindu immigration, as I see it, is quite different; and here I entirely agree with my hon. friend from Edmonton. This problem has reached an acute stage, because we must admit that the Hindus are not suited to the country, that their standard of living is radically different from ours. Yet, it is rather harsh to debar them and keep them out of the country when we know they are British subjects as we are British subjects. When I was coming back from Japan a few years ago, there were Hindus on board the steamer and very many of them were wearing the King's uniform; mostly all of them are British soldiers. This feature of the case makes the problem still more complex. Some years ago when the Hindus began to come into British Columbia. I, as Minister of Labour, dispatched to England the then deputy minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and a very satisfactory arrangement was made with the British authorities. This arrangement was followed by Orders in Council which were incorporated later on in the

Immigration Act. No Hindus were admitted unless they had come to Canada by a continuous passage and unless they were in possession of a sum of $200.
Sir, the problem of Hindu immigration has now reached an acute stage. We cannot ignore their complaints to this Government and to the British Government on account of their treatment by Canadian authorities. I received a few days ago a paper published by Mr. W. Baer, probably better known to my friends from British Columbia than to myself. Facts are revealed in that paper which I think call for an investigation and possibly drastic action on the part of the Dominion Government. I will just quote a few extracts:
Within the past few months the Hindu immigration problem, as distinct from the broader problem of Oriental immigration, has reached an acute stage in British Columbia and the Dominion as a whole. The recent forceful deportation of a Hindu priest uy an agent of the Immigration Department and the more recent ruling of a Supreme Court judge declaring two Orders in Council of the Dominion Government, under which Hindu immigration had been restricted ultra vires of the powers given by Parliament have brought the question up out of the vortex of local politics into the limelight of national importance.
Further on he says:
There was, therefore, special legislation governing the immigration of both Chinese and Japanese. The former paid his head tax and entered the country, little discrimination being exercised, and the Japanese had admittance on the same terms as immigrants from other countries provided they kept within the limitation agreed upon. But there was no legislation or agreement with respect to Hindus. These, though Orientals, had access to Canada, on compliance with the immigration regulations, in unlimited numbers. As few of the first came from India, and many were picked up by aggressively competitive steamship companies at any available shipping port and brought to the country the first effective barrier against their entrance was an Order in Council making a continuous journey a condition of their admittance. The regulation applied to Hindu women-
This is another phase of the problem:
-as well as men and was undoubtedly an effective restriction, as no continuous journey was possible. The stipulation of impossible conditions in the case of Hindu immigrants and the well-defined and easily negotiated conditions under which other Asiatic races entered the country, aroused the Hindustanis to a sense of the discrimination against them. Since they have analysed the effects of this discrimination the more intelligent among them have been tireless in their efforts to secure an equality with other Asiatics, demanding, as far as they have been able to make themselves heard, admission to Canada on terms not less difficult of compliance than other Orientals. Their agitation has excited the most determined stand of [Mr. Lemieux.j	.
the immigration authorities against their admission. Not wishing to forego the enormous sum collected annually from Chinese head tax, and not daring to interfere in the amicable arrangement entered into with Japan the Government has put over the door or entrance into Canada: ' No Hindu need apply.'
Further on he says:
It is a metaphysical mystery to the Hindu as to why a British nation, a scion of the empire which has done such signal service to humanity in India, a nation which preaches the gospel of the equality of mankind as to rights and privileges under its flag, should permit the immigration of Orientals who are not, and with difficulty become, British subjects while excluding citizens of the empire and subjects of the King who is lord over both Canadian and Hindu.
There is also an account of the Sikh priest who was deported in November last. It is well that I should give the facts as related by Mr. Baer:
A motion for an attachment for contempt of court on Malcolm ,1. Reid, immigration inspector at Vancouver, B.C., was begun in the Supreme Court. Bhai Bhagwan Singh, a well known Sikh priest, was forcibly deported by M. J. Reid and his assistants on the Empress of Japan on 19th November, despite the service of two writs of habeas corpus granted by Judge Morrison and Judge Murphy. Mr. McNeil, the counsel acting for Bhagwan Singh had charged that Bhagwan Singh had been arrested and deported by Inspector Reid in spite of an obligation he had entered into with counsel, under a pretence that he was required to have his bail renewed at the immigration shed. When the writ was served on Inspector Reid, he said in terms of the greatest contempt that he would not obey any order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, said Mr. McNeill. Counsel said that Bhagwan Singh was bundled on to the ship and that he was brutally treated after being placed aboard the vessel. Pledges whether given by responsible ministers of the Crown or mere inspectors have apparently no *weight in Canada.
We refer to the promise given us in 1911 by the Hon. Robert Rogers regarding the admission of Sikh families into Canada. If those higher in authority can fling to the winds solemn pledges what are we to say of Inspector Roia? We n-nooi to o"r rnrnitrvmcn to unite and bear in mind that in our struggle for justice and in the fight between the weak and the strong there are no pledges worth the paper on which they are written until they can be enforced. In politics everything is fair as in love and war.
This case of the Hindu priest was taken up by Mr. Hugh A. Matier of Vancouver, in a letter addressed to the Ottawa Citizen in November. I will quote only a few lines from this letter:
This Bhwagan Singh is a priest, a holy man and teacher of the Sikhs. He is accused of common assault, a trivial charge, and one perhaps unjustly laid. He was not allowed to refute it. While his ease was pending in the

police court, and while he was out on $500 bail furnished by his countrymen, he was seized by Canadian immigration officers for deportation. Having in mind what he has been taught of British fair-play and justice, and knowing how confidently he could appeal for it in India, Bhwagan Singh applied for a writ of habeas corpus against the immigration officers.	It was granted	by	the court,	but
ignored by the immigration officers. A second application was made and a second writ was issued.
Then, incredible as it will seem in England or any	other part of	the	empire	beyondCanada,	notwithstanding	the	pending	of	thecriminal charge in the police court, notwithstanding the release on bail, notwithstanding two separate writs of habeas corpus, notwithstanding	the refusal of	the	captain	of	the
Empress to take him on board, Bhwagan Singh, a priest, as the ship was leaving the wharf and the gang-plank had been drawn, was taken by immigration officers, acting under instructions from Ottawa, and flung bodily and at risk of breaking his neck on to the deck of the departing ship and so deported.
Mr. Matter, I need hardly say, condemns very severely the Government for this action of one of its officers, 'and at the same time he censures the immigration officers in uncompromising form:
But the whole trouble is caused by giving to government officials judicial powers which they cannot be trusted to exercise. Particularly in Oriental affairs one might as well set a blacksmith to repair a watch as to entrust the ordinary Canadian immigration officer with the handling of the Oriental situation in British Columbia. Yet the responsibility does not really rest upon these jacks-in-office, strong in the back and weak in the head. It rests upon Dr. Roche, upon Mr. Doherty, and finally upon Mr. Borden himself. This Bhwagan Singh affair will be talked about and brooded over in every Sikh household in India; and it will be deplored by every man who has the interests of the empire at heart; who has knowledge enough, and head enough and heart enough to be concerned for something more than his own special little corner where floats the Union Jack.
So, Mr. Speaker,_ it is not a very healthy condition of things in British Columbia when a British subject is forcibly deported in spite of the writ of habeas corpus granted by the judge of the Superior Court. I regret that the Minister of Justice is not in his place, for it would be worth while to have his opinion on the validity of a writ of habeas corpus as against the deportation clause of the Immigration Act. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) cited a moment ago the Thaw case. I believe that in that case the action of the Minister of Justice was commendable. I believe that Thaw was the most undesirable citizen that Canada could receive. At the same time, we must not forget that a
writ of habeas corpus was granted in the case of Thaw, and if the writ was not maintained that fact was due to a defect in* the proceedings, to an error in the service of the writ. I have here the dictum of the Chief of Justice Sir Horace Archambault, of the Court of Appeal, Montreal:
I will commence by examining this last mentioned objection, seeing that, if the proceedings by way of habeas corpus are not permitted in this particular case, it is useless to examine the other question, as in such an event the writ itself would have been illegally granted.
The contentions of the respondents in this particular case are based on article 23 of the Immigration Act of 1910 (9 and 10 Edward VII, chap. 27), which reads as follows:
' No court and no judge or officer thereof shall have jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with any proceeding, decision or order of the minister or of any hoard of inquiry or officer in charge had, made or given under the authority and in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the detention and deportation of any rejected immigrant, passenger or other person, upon any ground whatsoever, unless such person is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile.'
Does this article take away the right to habeas corpus? We do not believe so. The right to individual liberty is and has always been considered one of the most precious privileges which the British constitution guarantees to the subject of the kingdom,; Article 39 of Magna Charta (1215) sanctioned this guarantee in the following terms:
' Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonatur nisi par legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terrae.'
The Chief Justice goes into a brief historical survey of the writ of habeas corpus, and closes with the following:
I will not discuss the question as to whether our Parliament can suspend or arrest, in certain cases, the operation of the Habeas Corpus Act. At first sight my opinion is that it has the power. I do riot say that our Parliament can despoil Canadian subjects of the privileges of the disposition of Magna Charta which I have cited above. This privilege forms, to such an extent, part of the English constitution, that I do not believe that any colonial parliament can suppress it.. But I believe that the Parliament of Canada possesses the power to suspend the provisions of our Habeas Corpus Act, just as it had the power to pass this Act. Yet, the dispositions embodied in this Act are so sacred to the mind of every British subject, as I have said above, that it would require a very formal law to suppress them. It is not by simple Inference that one may come to this conclusion. On this point I entirely share the opinion of an ex-member of this court, Hon. Judge Ouimet, who said, in re Gaynor and Greene, 9 Can. Cr. Cas. 49G, at 498:-
* I cannot admit that an Act of the importance of the Habeas Corpus Act can be amended and the rights of the subject intended to be preserved under it, can be curtailed by a casual expression found, in a subsequent statute. To amend an existing Act there must

be a clear and precise enactment. Such amendment cannot be interpreted as resulting from mere implication or inference.'
The judge proceeded to apply the law in the Thaw case, and I think we have in his judgment a clear interpretation of the best traditions of English and Canadian jurisprudence.


Mr. BORDEN:: I have not read the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, which has been quoted, and I am not sure that I entirely gather the purport of his pronouncement. Does he mean that the British Parliament is the only parliament that can interfere with or repeal Magna Oharta in this country?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, no. I will send the judgment to my right hon. friend and he will see that it goes into the whole history of the matter. The dictum of the learned Chief Justice .had reference only to the particular case of Thaw, and the power the Parliament of Canada had to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act by the Immigration Act.


Robert Laird Borden: I would agree at once, of course that it should only be done in the most direct .and positive manner, but if the learned Chief Justice decided more than that, and denied the competency of this Parliament to deal with such a subject, I would not, at first sight, be disposed to agree at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In that case, the legal advisers of the Department of the Interior contended that Thaw could not get the benefit of the Habeas Corpus Act. If the right hon. gentleman will read the judgment of Chief Justice Archambault he will find therein what I have stated.
My opinion has always been that the writ of habeas corpus is an inherent right of every British subject. It 'has always been called the palladium of British liberty, and I do not share the view of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that British immigrants coming to Canada should be deprived of the right of habeas corpus. Let us put aside for the moment the question of those coming to Canada who might be designated foreigners, and let us take the case of that Sikh Hindu priest, who was a British subject. Surely he could claim the benefit of a writ of habeas corpus, even if the Canadian immigration officers had decided to deport him. I may be all wrong, of course, in this, but it seems to me to be in accordance with British justice and freedom.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the 'hon. member mean to express the opinion that this House of Commons, and the Senate, and His Excellency the Governor General, could not together pass legislation to take away the right of habeas corpus from a British subject?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is why I said I
would like to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice. Chief Justice Archambault, of the Appeal Court of Quebec, questioned that right, and it is eerta nly a debatable po.nt. It seems to me that in the case under review, that Sikh priest Bhagwan Singh was most unfairly and most brutally treated, if the facts I have related are true. I cannot speak, of course, from personal know .edge; I speak only from what I read in Mr. Baer's paper.
The situat.on is one that calls for immediate action on the part of the Government. It is not a question of Chinese or Japanese immigration; the present difficulty lies with the Hindus, wlio are British subjects, like yourself, Mr. Speaker, and like myself. When this deportation took place in British Columbia, there was great indignation on the part of our fellow-subjects, the Hindus. I read the following despatch:
Vancouver, B.C., Dec. 7.

Indignant at the widespread agitation which developed following the decision handed down by Chief Justice Hunter in the Hindu immigration cases ,ast week, many former natives of the Punjab are said to have declared their intention of returning to their own country ' with flames in their hearts,' as they describe their feelings in the picturesque style of the orient.
This decision was reached at meetings held yesterday in Victoria and Vancouver.
A telegram was drafted at the gathering and despatched to the hon. R. L. Borden, informing the premier of the determination of many of the Sikhs to leave this country in a hostile frame of mind. Exclusion which has been suggested as a solution of the Hindu immigration problem, would be looked upon as a mark of degradation in the eyes of their ' brothers in arms ' in the Punjab, the men point out in their telegram to the premier, referring to the fact that the majority of the native soldiers in the Punjab were loyal to the British at the time of the Indian mutiny and helped to save that part of India to the empire. The opinion is also expressed in the telegram that the resident Hindus now believe it is useless for them to appeal to the Canadian Government for equitable treatment, evidently alluding to the forcible deportation of the priest Bhagwan Singh on the Empress last month.


Mr. STEVENS:: What did the hon. member read that article from?


Rodolphe Lemieux: From the Ottawa Citizen of the 7th of December; it is a despatch from Vancouver. I quite agree with what

Sir Richard McBride, the Premier oi British Columbia, sa:d at that time. I find on the 2nd of December in a despatch from Vancouver, after the decision of Chief Justice Hunter had been handed to the press, that Sir R:chard McBride used the following language:
We have always tried to make it clear that objections which the Government of this province entertains towards the entry of Hindus are not upon race grounds, but are of an economic and social nature.
I admit that the Hindus have none of our standards of living; that they cannot expect to find this climate suitable to them, and that they create a great feeling of hostility in the labour markets of British Columbia. Once more I say, that I do not object to the language of Sir Richard McBride. We know the difficulties of British Columbia, but it all goes to emphasise the fact that there is a wide margin between jingoistic theories and Canadian conditions.
It is easy for the promoters of the once famous imperial federation scheme to write a new constitution for the United Kingdom and the dominions; but how difficult the task of working out such a constitution ! I remember the very able speech delivered a year ago during the naval debate in this House by my hon. friend the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), in which he spoke of the manifest destiny of Canada. According to my hon. friend, probably one of the best exponents of the movement in favour of imperial federation, the nineteenth century had been the century of autonomy, but the twentieth century was that of co-partnership in the British Empire. He used the following language:
The sweep of the tide is too strong to be thrust back. One might as well try to check the waters of Niagara midway in their fall and push them back over the brink from which they have fallen, as to endeavour to prevent Canada from proceeding along the course of her manifest destiny.
The advocates of imperial federation say that the time is ripe for a central parliament for the empire. The idea of imperial federation is not new; it started thirty-five or forty years ago. It had a spasmodic life, but it gained some vigour last year when we were discussing the question of naval defence. It is well known that in Canada the only loyal people, or, to speak according to the new imperialistic dictionary, the only loyalists are the jingoes. Sir, the only true imperialists, and
therefore the only loyalists, are the friends of the present Government. In Canada as well as in England, the jingoes claim to be the only repositories of imperialism. Long ago, the movement in Canada has been captured and harnessed by the Tory party. Sir Richard McBride, the Premier of British Columbia, speaking at the Canadian club at Ottawa and at various other places throughout the country, has identified himself with the ultra-jingo movement. Yet, Sir, speaking as a Canadian who thinks that it is quite easy to expound theories but very hard to apply them to conditions, I say that this same gentleman, who parades his imperialism, who claims to be a better Britisher than his opponents, is the one who bangs, bars and bolts the gate of Canada against his fellow subjects, the Hindus. Sir, there are people who believe in imperialism, but in sane imperialism; and the sane imperialists, in my judgment, are those who stand at all times, for the autonomy of the dominions and not those who preach centralization and one parliament for the empire, and yet who, at the first opportunity, if it suits their political purposes, are ready to fling their so-called imperialist principles to the winds.
Sir, after the troubles in British Columbia last fall, and after the grave complications which occurred in South Africa, Mr. Bryce, a sane imperialist, and at the same time a great Liberal, speaking at a dinner given in his honour at London, used the following language. The despatch is dated December 12, 1913, and reads as follows:
Mr. James Bryce, late British Ambassador to Washington, was to-night entertained at a complimentary banquet at the National Liberal Club. Sir Edward Grey occupied the chair. Replying to the toast of the evening, Mr. Bryce made some interesting reflections upon affai s in the overseas dominions, particularly Canada. That Dominion had, he said, already become a great nation and with her unexampled prosperity she had every prospect of becoming one of the most happy, wealthy and orderly communities the world contained.
Two things were particularly encouraging in Canada as well as Australia and New Zealand. One was the purity of public life. Public opinion maintained there the high standard which had been held in this country since the days of Chatham and Pitt, and no man who was seriously tainted could hold his ground in politics. In the second place, the judicial bench was absolutely above suspicion, and that was largely due to the fact that the British precedent had been faithfully observed.
Mr. Bryce went on to refer to ' race antagonism,' which was becoming acute in certain parts of the empire. We had given our Imperial citizenship to all our subjects, he said, but, on the other hand, there were rights we had neces-

sarily conceded to self-governing dominions. Each of the self-governing dominions was master in its own house. When the action of the self-governing dominions came into opposition with what were supposed to be the interests and feelings of a branch of one of the other races inhabiting another part of the empire, and when that race thought that in the person of members of the same race it was injured or wounded a painful dilemma arose. He did not see satisfactory issue from that dilemma. All we could do was to exert our influence to the utmost to endeavour to mitigate the feeling and to make each party understand the difficulties of the position and need of dealing tenderly with each other. Seeing how acute this antagonism was, would it not be better to endeavour to induce each race to stay so long as the position remained so acute within its own country. He was not without hope that in time those feelings would pass away, but when one saw how strong racial feeling could be and in a certain sense how unreasonable and how hard to deal with, one felt that the more we could avert occasions for it arising, the better for both parties.
The words of Mr. Bryce should serve as a lesson to all the ultra-jingoes who, not being satisfied with the conditions existing in this country, would like to write a new constitution for Canada, with centralization of the affairs of the dominions in an imperial parliament. The people who advocate such a plan should profit by the lesson now given us by the very events which have taken place in British Columbia. After all, these events only emphasise the wise policy which has always been followed by England during the latter portion of the last century, to give each dominion its autonomy and the right to deal with its own problems and its own conditions.
I did not intend to speak so long, but I think that the question deserves more than a passing reference in view of what has taken place in British Columbia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a matter of some gratification to the members from British Columbia to note the concern which apparently exercises the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Eemieux) for the affairs of British Columbia, especially in regard to this most perplexing problem, one which has been for many years almost peculiar to British Columbia. We do not, however, look upon it in that limited manner; we hold that it is a problem which interests the whole Dominion of Canada. It is quite true that from a practical standpoint the effects of Asiatic or Oriental immigration are to be seen chiefly in British Columbia, and only to a limited extent in other parts of Canada, However, I repeat that we hold this to be . 
a problem of more than provincial importance. The hon. member for Edmonton has intimated-I think	asserted-that
in so far as European immigration is concerned, no objection can be taken to it. To a certain extent I must take issue with him on that point, and I take this occasion of placing my opinion very briefly before the House.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think he will search ' Hansard ' in vain for any .such assertion on my part. My hon. friend knows that when the late Government was in office and I was responsible for the administration of the Department of Immigration, I took very drastic measures in regard to the restriction of European as well as other immigration. Perhaps my hon. friend misunderstood me when I spoke about European civilization.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad my hon.
friend has corrected me, because I should not like to think that he or any other member of the House would, without consideration at all, welcome all immigration from Europe. I believe U is the function of this Government and the function of every government of Canada carefully to scrutinize immigration into this country, whether it comes from Europe or from Asia. There is no question whatever of the fact that the problem of Oriental immigration is one of considerable difficulty. The difficulty with which we are faced at the present time in connection with Oriental immigration is due largely to the fact that the government of which my hon. friends, both of whom spoke this afternoon, were members, did not deal properly with the matter when it was before them. I refer especially to the question of Hindu immigration. The hon. member for Rou-ville gave the whole case away this afternoon when he pointed out the care that ought to be taken in connection with immigration into Canada from any country under the British flag, at the same time assenting that it was when he was Minister of Labour that the then Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Mackenzie King, was sent to London; that the authorities there agreed to exclude Hindus from Canada, and that the agreement verbally entered into at that time was afterwards incorporated into an Order in Council constituting the immigration regulation which was placed on ' Hansard ' by the hon. member for Edmonton. That being the case, we find the hon. member for Rouville in an

unenviable position. He was the one who, according to his own statement, devised the defective arrangement which was made in connection with this matter, and handed down to this Government and to this country the problem which has now grown to such dimensions that it affects not only British Columbia, but the whole empire. I lay the blame for this absolutely at the door of the hon. gentleman who trifled with this matter when it was first brought to the attention of the country in a very strong manner in 1907.


William Erskine Knowles: Does my hon. friend know that last year we had five times as many Hindu immigrants as we had in the last year of the Laurier Administration?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member for Moosejaw is quibbling.


William Erskine Knowles: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit that the hon. gentleman is quibbling, and I will point out the grounds upon which I think he is doing so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Such an assertion is not permissible.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I submit, however, that the assertion of my hon. friend which throws out the inference that this Government is lax in its duties with regard to immigration, is not founded on fact. Hindu immigration into Canada was limited for a number of years to two, three, four or five a year. In 1913, through the manipulation of the courts, a bunch of Hindus managed to get in-38, I think.


William Erskine Knowles: Eighty-eight.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Call it eighty-eight if you wish, but I do not think that is the right figure. A large number of these were Hindus who had been visiting in India, and who were entitled to return to Canada. I think the newcomers were limited to a very small number, and these, as I say, got in during a little confusion caused by the court's upsetting the Order in Council. So that the hon. member for Moosejaw has not made any very great point by his assertion. I repeat that the blame, if there is any, is entirely at the door of the hon. gentlemen who failed to deal with this question when it was fairly before the country. During the last twenty years the people of British Columbia have been urging upon the Canadian Government to pass such legislation or put in
force such regulations as would effectively keep the Asiatics out of Canada. What was done? An Order in Council, drafted by the hon. member for Rouville, was passed, and the strength of that Order in Council lay in the provision that no emigrant could come to Canada unless he came by a direct route. The hon. gentleman knew, and the Government of which he was a member knew, that there was no steamship line running direct from India to Canada, and that, therefore, this regulation would keep the Hindu out and at the same time render the Government immune from attack upon the ground that they were passing regulations against the interests of the Hindus, who are supposed to be subjects of the British Empire. I say that that regulation, which was nothing more or less than a farce in so far as its dealing with the question was concerned, was the cause of the whole trouble. If my hon. friend will read the memorials that have been submitted to this Government, to the British Government and to the Government of India, they will find that in every case this particular regulation has been cited as an iniquitous procedure on the part of the Government. It is now up to this Government to rectify the muddle, shall I say, in which the whole problem has been placed by the action of hon. gentlemen opposite.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the House rose at six o'clock, I had pointed out that if there is a problem at the present time of an imperial character in connection with the Asiatic question, the responsibility for the existence of that problem rests with hon. gentlemen opposite, and that had it not been for the loose manner in which this question was dealt with when it was in a critical stage about 1911, the question would not have been in the condition it is in to-day, and the problem would not have been as acute. I hold that it was the duty of the Government of that day, and it is the duty of the present Government, to place the immigration laws in such a condition that no question can arise as to their validity or intention, such as we experienced in the months of November and December last. I recognize fully that this is a very important question. I realize the significance of its international aspect, and I appreciate the difficulties which face any Government which undertakes to deal with

a problem that is affected in the way this one is by international 'complications and by its imperial aspect. However, I hold very strongly to the view that immigration into any country is a privilege extended by that country to those who choose to come to it. I hold that it is the right and privilege of this Dominion to specify the terms and conditions under which immigrants shall enter this country. I shall not enlarge upon that phase of the question, because I think it is realized by all who have given the subject consideration.
I would like to refer briefly to the different aspects of the Asiatic question, exemplified -in the three races which are most prominent-the Japanese, the Chinese and the Hindus. In so far as the Japanese are concerned, we have, as has been stated, an amicable arrangement with that country, a very sensible arrangement, which is working fairly satisfactorily. I would, however, draw the attention of the Government to the fact that possibly there is a slight increase in the number of immigrants from Japan over and above that which is generally understood to be the number to which it is limited. I think if the present Government were to draw the attention of the Government of Japan to this matter it would be at once rectified. In any case, the excess is so small that it is not a matter of serious moment. Thus, in so far as the Japanese are concerned, we have a very satisfactory solution of the problem. In so far as the Chinese are concerned, I would suggest to the Government that it would be an extremely wise thing to ascertain if it is not possible to enter into an agreement or treaty with the Chinese Government similar to that which we have with Japan. Some citizens of Canada, especially in eastern Canada, hold that the people of British Columbia tolerate the Chinese immigration because of the revenue which is derived therefrom. This is not the case, except possibly in a very few instances of which I am not aware. We are quite willing and extremely anxious to forego the revenue from the $500 head tax if we can restrict still further the influx of Chinese into Canada, and I would further urge upon the Government very strongly the advisability of entering into some such arrangement with China as we have with Japan.
I note with satisfaction the remarks of the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) in regard to the increase of trade with the Orient. We are anxious to increase trade with the Orient. We realize that a large [Mr. Stevens.1
trade can be built up with those countries. At the same time, I believe that we can come to an understanding with these two peoples, at least in regard to restriction of immigration without violating the pride of race or the rights of nations. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) this afternoon, while he expressed many sentiments which I welcomed, while he gave expression to many things which we wno come from the province of British Columbia were pleased to hear fall from his lips as a representative member of the Opposition, spent a great deal of time on some more or less trivial technical points relating to the Orders in Council. I would have liked to have heard the hon. member enlarge along the lines of the desirability and the effect of Asiatic immigration from his standpoint, because as late Minister of the Interior he must have in his possession a great deal of information along that line. In so far as the Orders in Council referred to are concerned, I must give expression to an opinion which I have expressed before on the public platform in regard to Chief Justice Hunter's decision. I consider that the two chief points in his decision were mo'^e or less-I was called to order for using the word quibble, but I must apply some such term. For instance, Chief Justice Hunter drew a very fine distinction when he said that the words ' Asiatic origin ' would have the effect of keeping out of Canada children born in Asia of British parents. I submit to you that the word * origin * used in connection with a class or race of people in any country is usually applied from the standpoints of the parents of the person under consideration; for instance if I should go into the foreign section of this city and ask the origin of a child who was born in Canada, I would be answered in the terms oi parenthood that the child was a Bulgarian or an Austrian or whatever it might be. So I think that the argument of the Chief Justice in this case was a very frail one and very thin. Possibly the Chief Justice was a little in sympathy with the Asiatic side of that question when he handed down that decision. It is rather an amazing thing that the Order in Council has been in existence since 1910, that there have been several cases before the courts, and yet it was only a few weeks ago that this very serious mattter was considered. However, that has been rectified.
Reference was made this afternoon to the Chinese being exempted from the special Order in Council passed in December last. The exemption of the Chinese, as the Min-

ister ol the Interior will be be able to explain, is owing to the fact that they are dealt with under a special Act; therefore they do not come under this Order in Council which was issued under the terms of the Immigration Act. In any case, the number of Chinese arriving in Canada during the last two or three months was very small. I think there were 42 in November and 15 in December, so the matter is not a very serious one. The Government is faced with the difficulty bequeathed to them by the late Government, and they must deal properly with the problem or there will undoubtedly be serious complications later. I shall deal briefly with the Asiatic question from the Chinese standpoint. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) held this afternoon that it was desirable to let a number of Chinese in because they make good domestic servants. I take very strong issue with him there. The fact of the Chinese entering into domestic service in the West has made it doubly difficult to get female domestics. While the Chinese do make good domestic servants, there are many sidelights on this question-which I would not care to bring before the House, but which any hon. member can ascertain by a careful study of the question-which make the Chinaman most undesirable as a domestic servant. Further, I hold that it is unwise to encourage a certain class of immigrants simply because they make good menials. The class of immigrants we should encourage are those which will make good citizens, and for that reason alone, we should discourage the immigration of Chinese.
Some have claimed that the Chinamen make good agriculturists. The farmers of the Pacific Coast did use Orientals for some time ; but at a recent convention held at New Westminster, I think, a very strong resolution was passed and forwarded to the Government urging that steps be taken to exclude the Chinese and Orientals generally because they were securing control of the agricultural interests of the Pacific Coast. Some may say:	If the
Chinese are able to underbid the white men in agriculture, why not let them do it?
I will give my opinion why we should not encourage Chinese immigration. In the first place, the Chinese are brought to this country under a system which is nothing
more or less than slavery. A large syndicate of very wealthy Chinamen having offices in Vancouver, Victoria, Shanghai. Canton, Seattle and other places is bringing numbers of Chinese to Canada. The syndicate pays the passage money and the head tax, and the Chinese brought in are the virtual slaves of that syndicate until they are able to pay off to the last dollar not only the principal but a fabulous interest as well. I say without hesitation that in this democratic country we have no right to tolerate that kind of immigration. Our principle in the abstract, and it should be in the concrete and practical, is that the immigrant should be a self-sustaining man who will take his place among the citizens of this country. What is the effect of this system of partial slavery. The syndicate buy or lease large tracts of the most fertile land; the Chinese immigrants are placed on that land; they are paid wages which suit the syndicate, who absolutely control their lives. I know of one case where an old Chinaman had been working for thirty years in British Columbia and had not yet paid off his indemnity. Possibly it was his own fault, because gambling is very prevalent among the Chinese. But the syndicate also control the gambling dens. So you can see how easy it would he for a syndicate such as I have described practically to control the earnings' of the people they bring in for many years, and that is the condition .that exists. How can we expect self-[DOT] respecting Canadians to compete against men working under such conditions? I have a letter here from Charles E. Hope, a farmer, one clause of which I will read as it is worthy of the consideration of the Government and members of this House:
The opinion has always been generally held in this province that farmers as a whole were rather in favour of Oriental immigration, as it gave them cheap labour for clearing their bush lands. I am employing personally both Chinese and Hindus at the present time and have employed Chinese for many years back. But there is another side to this question which the farming community is beginning to find out and, personally, I have been of the opinion for some time back, that it would be infinitely better for the farmer to employ white labour, even if he did pay a little more for his land clearing, and to have a fair competition with the various Oriental races in the things which he is producing-instead of the comparatively cheap labour for land clearing and the 'jug-handled ' competition which he gets in his farming operations. As a matter of fact, the cost of Oriental labour for land clearing is really very little, if any. less than that of white labour, taking into consideration their relative efficiencies and other indirect matters, and I can say this without any doubt, as I have


Mr. BRADBURY:: What is the weight of a fish?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not know exactly.


John Douglas Hazen: The sockeye weight there is 8 lbs., I think.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the case of spring salmon, a certain allowance is made. But there was an ample supply of white labour in those days, and had the poiioy continued of keeping the fisheries in the hands of .white men, we should have had by this time a splendid population of white fishermen along the Pacific coast. The introduction of Asiatics into the lumber business, jnto the fisheries and into the logging camps has had the effect of driving away white men from these lines. Take the ;case of the logging business. I leave it to the judgment of hon. members of this House:	if there are seventy or eighty
Chinese or Japanese in a logging camp, is it not true the average Canadian will not stay in that camp any longer than he has to? So white men get out of the camps where the Asiatics predominate, and so they have earned the reputation of being rather careless and indifferent as to their time of employment. But it is the direct result of the introduction of this labour. Members of the House from Ontario know that you cannot get the average Canadian to work in association with a gang of Dagos or pure foreigners; they will not do it. It is

the inherent racial pride of the Anglo-Saxon that forbids him, and I for one am not prepared to stifle that racial pride, as it is the secret of our national success.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the rate of
wages paid to Asiatic labour in the sawmills, on the farms and in the fisheries?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot say exactly; but I understand that now in our sawmills some of the more trained Asiatics who have been working for a few years get as high as ,$1.75 a day. In the fisheries men are usually paid for the fish they catch. I have already pointed out that on the fisheries of the Skeena, whereas fifteen years ago the white fishermen were paid 25 cents a fish, to-day the Asiatic fishermen are paid only 10 cents or 12J cents. But let me supplement that with this observation- when the eamners paid 25 cents fifteen years ago, the canneries received only $4.50 to $5 a case for their fish pack, today they are receiving as high, I think, as .$9 a case. I am not sure what this year's pack brought, but it was somewhere in that neighbourhood.
This shows that they could well afford to pay the white fishermen. I do not blame the cannery men for getting all they can secure; but I do say that it is tne duty of the people of this country to build up on their coast line a population which I am always glad to denominate a defence line for their country. I was taken to task in the lobbies of this House a year or two ago by a friend from Nova Scotia, for my attitude in this matter. I said to him: ' You have a fine fishing population in Nova Scotia.' He answered: 'We have, and we are proud of it.' I said: ' Suppose that inside of a year or two those fishermen were supplanted by Japanese, how would you feel about it?' It is not a case of maudlin sentiment about these people or admiring their advancement; it is a case of self-preservation from the national standpoint, and it is the duty of this country to see to it that every avenue of leakage is stopped so far as our national life is concerned.
Now, referring to the Hindu question. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) in a rather tragic manner, drew attention to this question in terms something like these. He said: Mr. Speaker, how would you like to be placed in the position this Hindu was placed in, who was a British subject as you are and as I am? I am auite prepared to agree that 79
the Hindus, of India, generally speaking are British subjects. But I draw a distinction which, I am frank to say, very few people agree with me in, but still I am going to give it. While the Hindu is a British subject and entitled to the protection of the British Crown, he is not a British citizen even in his own country, because he does not exercise the rights of citizenship in a democratic way. There are only sixteen millions of people in India who live to-day under an elective form of Government, and these include the populations of the city of Calcutta, Bombay, Rangoon and others. These sixteen millions live under an elective form of Government, but only half the council is elected and the other half is appointed by the Government of India. So, there is practically no such thing as democratic government and citizenship in India. I hold that before the Hindu has the right to come to Canada or any part of the empire and claim the privileges of citizenship, he should at least attain that right in his own country. I am not going to enter into a discussion whether or not home rule for India is a desirable thing. That is a distinct question from this, and I will not confuse the two. I point out that the Hindus do not exercise these rights in India, and I say they have no right to come and demand here a privilege that they do not exercise in their own country.
There is another aspect of the question: My hon. friend from Rouville was very eloquent in his defence of a certain Hindu named Bhagwan Singh. It is my intention to deal with that case; and I know from my observations of the last two or three years that the hon. member for Rouville would not, and will not, support a man who has been guilty of actions such as Bhagwan Singh and his friends are guilty of at the present time. The trouble is that the hon. member spoke without being properly informed as to the actual facts. His intentions were good, but when an hon. member undertakes to bring a charge of dereliction of duty against a government, he should first familiarize himself with the details of the case. The hon. gentleman based his information upon two or three newspaper reports, written at the coast and sent to the eastern newspapers, and he also quoted the authority of a gentleman named W. W. Baer. Mr. Baer is the Liberal organizer for British Columbia, but I do not think that at the present moment he is in the



good graces of his party. As a matter of fact, a few days before I left Vancouver, in the month of January, Mr. Baer went to a solicitor and asked that a writ for his salary be issued against the Liberal organization committee of Vancouver.


An hon. MEMBER:: They must be
hard up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The party funds are in bad shape. I am not here to cast any reflection upon Mr. Baer, but I want to tell the hon. member for Rouville that when he quotes Mr. W. W. Baer as an authority, he is quoting a gentleman who has been discarded by his own party, and one who, among those who know his record, has very little influence in the affairs of British Columbia. Mr. Baer is a man of considerable intelligence, but he entirely lacks balance; I will not say anything more at present with regard to him personally.
The hon. member for Rouville stated that Bhagwan Singh was deported in defiance of a writ of habeas corpus. No such thing occurred. Bhagwan Singh was deported quite properly. The writ of habeas corpus was never served, and, as a matter of fact, the writ was secured in Vancouver under, what I may term, misrepresentation-I shall read the judgment in a moment, which sets forth that fact-or, at least, through concealment of certain facts. The judge simply said to the registrar: 'You may advise whoever is concerned, by telegraph, that a writ has been issued.' A wireless was sent to Mr. Malcolm Reid, the immigration agent, stating that a writ had been issued. Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you: Would you accept the service of a serious writ, which would interfere with the discharge of your duties, and which was conveyed to you in a wireless message? Any one might forge a name on a telegram; any irresponsible person might file a telegram stating that a certain writ had been issued, but that is not service of a writ. The writ was never served upon Mr. Malcolm Reid. I will read the last judgment rendered in this case. Hon. gentlemen opposite have read certain judgments that have been handed down, and my hon. friend from Rouville quoted a judgment given in the province of Quebec, which had nothing to do with the case at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quoted it in reference to the question of habeas corpus.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend quoted a judgment in reference to the Thaw case in the province of Quebec, Uu+ th-t had
[Mr. Stevens.!
nothing whatever to do with the British Columbia case. The hon. member for Edmonton, on the other hand, quoted the Thaw case as an illustration of what the Government might have done in the Bhagwan Singh case, so there is a great difference of opinion between these two hon. gentlemen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What I stated was, that I would like to have the opinion of the Minister of Justice were he in the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The judgment of the
Chief Justice of Quebec had no bearing on the Bhagwan Singh case whatever.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I beg your pardon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have here the decision of Mr. Justice Morrison and I shall read portions of it. The learned judge says:
The incident referred to in the material filed, that I was interrupted in my sittings at the Vancouver Criminal Assize by a solicitor on the applicants' behalf for the purpose of Instructing the registrar to forward a message to Mr. Reid that the writ had been issued, cannot I submit in any way be taken as a confirmation of my previous order. X merely told the registrar that if a writ had in fact been issued I saw no reason why he should not state that fact in a telegram to whomsoever might be interested in that occurrence. Considerable stress was laid in the affidavits filed on behalf of Bhagwan Singh upon the alleged contumely displayed by Mr. Reid when told of the proceedings leading to the issue of the writ and which allegations are derived by him. As to that phase of this matter all I have to say is that Mr. Reid is a responsible officer of a great department of Government and doubtless the minister in charge of that department will take proper cognizance of this incident if founded on facts. Under all circumstances I do not think I am called upon to display any undue sensitiveness concerning it. The dignity of the court in such cases usually takes care of itself. The order of the 7th October, 1913, upon which is based the writ of the 19th November, 1913, is therefore set aside.
My hon. friend from Rouville condemned Mr. Malcolm Reid in most unmeasured terms for his action in this case, but I can tell the hon. member that in my estimation, and in the estimation of every man who has given this matter any thought and who knows the facts, Mr. Malcolm Reid acted as it was his duty to act; he did not take a single step without having good reason for his action. The difficulty is that the Hindus have got into the habit of going to our courts whenever any little minor dispute arises.
Let me remind hon. gentlemen opposite that last year upwards of 4,000 people were deported from Canada to the British Isles, and of that number I do not think one single case was appealed to the courts. On the other hand, on the Pacific

coast, in every case in which a Hindu is involved, they raise a fund amongst themselves and they fly to the courts, the object being to, if possible, break the regulations which control immigration to this' country. It is not a case of getting a square deal; it is a case of trying to dig a hole or find a flaw in our regulations, and of upsetting them in that way. I am entirely in accord with the opinion of the hon. member for Edmonton, that it is this Parliament and the Government which should control the right of entry into this country, and that right should not, in any sense, be left to the courts.
I wish to place before the House some rather serious matters to show who this man, Bhagwan Singh, is, and the people he was associated with. He was deported because he came into Canada on direct misrepresentation. He represented to the immigration officials that he had been in Canada before and was returning to the place of his domicile; he represented that he was a labourer and that he had worked in certain mills in Vancouver. It was absolutely proven that that was perjury and that he had never been in Canada before. A large number of other Hindus were found playing the same game. We have absolute evidence that there was a regular conspiracy among the Hindus. They sent photographs, descriptions, names of streets, names of people, which the Hindus got off by rote, so that when they came to enter Canada they could pretend that they had been here before and thus deceive the authorities.. In the first place, Bhagwan Singh perjured himself as to his having been here before; in the second place, he said he was a labourer when he was nothing of the kind; he was a political and social agitator of the most violent type. I have here the Hindustanee, which describes itself as the official organ of the United India League, of date January 1, in which they describe Bhagwan Singh as ' a social reformer ' of a high intellectual order, who was greatly respected among the Hindu colony. Bear in mind that this man came into this country as a labourer, and represented that he was domiciled in Canada, and had only been to India on a visit. In the Hindustanee of the month of February of this year, he is represented as ' a great social reformer, preacher, and recognized orator, as testified to by the vast audience which rapturously listened to his intellectual discourses on religious, philosophic, and social and political prob-79J
lems;' and it states that 'his knowledge of the Punjab language is considered extraordinary.' I may mention that this man does not speak one word of English. There is nothing wrong in a man such as in these two articles he is described as being. What I wish to emphasise is this, that they point to him as a prominent social reformer, whereas he came in as a labourer. Therein lies the misrepresentation. I hold in my hand a Hindu paper called the Sansar, in which we have an insight into the actual character of Bhagwan Singh and his actions while in Canada. It has an article criticising the management of a company which the Hindus controlled and through which they managed to exploit their fellows. The language used in this article is a direct translation from the Hindustani, and is what one might call pigeon-English-the interpreter has done his best. After describing certain matters which do not affect this case, the article goes on to say:
This new work has begun from Bhagwan Singh. It is hardly six weeks since he has come from Hong Kong. This is a new country to him and he does not know the business system of the country. Seeing the company's money he started to excite the men to the uplifting of the country and with the papers in his pocket began to act as ' unasked-for ' director.
That is, he associated himself with this particular company without their asking him to do so.
When in our next issue we informed the shareholders of this trick, then many threatening letters were caused to be sent to us. To reveal the truth, we are not afraid of these letters. Our words are bitter though, but their end will be sweet. We wrote for the benefit of the shareholders and will continue it.
fn the misrepresentation, our works were conducted in the wrong manner and now it will never be' let to be done so.
I wish to give special emphasis to this paragraph:
Doctor Soonder Singh requested many times at Victoria to Bhagwan Singh that you two three men who are so-called patriots come forward and do the work. If not then my landed pioperty is worth of a reasonable sum and accept so much for doing the work of preaching.
That is, these men were asking for certain funds for their services.
But Bhagwan Singh asked something more, then this sum was increased to $60 a month. Even on this he did not agree. On account of hard times our brothers are becoming out of jobs and Bhagwan Singh thinks that this is the time of his money-making. Many of our talkers have worked in up-lifting the country, but Bhagwan Singh in Hong Kong was the root

of all troubles. The majority Is now at their ease and comfort since he has left there. Here also Bhagwan Singh should stop all these troubles, and it would be better if he quits the company's work of which he is quite ignorant as he does not know English education. There' we he should not lead the company to bam uptcy and lose the shareholders money thert-y.
That is th" criticism hurled at him by very prominent Hindus.
It is commonly known that there is considerable trouble amongst the Hindus on the Pacific coast. I hold in my hand copies of certain affidavits illustrating this point, and I trust the House will bear with me if I read a few of them. These affidavits bear directly upon Bhagwan Singh and the type of Hindu which he represents. A certain meeting was held on Saturday, the 10th day of January, 1914, at the Sikh Temple, 1866 2nd Avenue, West, city of Vancouver, B.C., and the following is a correct statement of what Chajoo Bam stated at that meeting:
I and some other Hindus were sitting, on New Year's night, at my store in Pender Alley in the city of Vancouver, and somebody passing by broke a window. Several Hindus were eating at the time. I said to the men who were in my store that I would lay an information against Baboo Singh for breaking the window if they would act as witnesses in my behalf and they promised they would. Chajoo Ram further stated: Baboo Singh did not break the window. I know the man who broke the window, but I only laid this information against Baboo Singh to help our countrymen because he was opposed to our interests and because he is helping the immigration authorities. I do not care if this case is dismissed, but 1 will do something else against Baboo Singh. I will keep after him and I will get him eventually. I do not care what I do. I have no doubt but that some small dog friend of his is sitting in the audience at the present time listening to this and will tell him.'
I wish to quote another speaker at that same meeting. He spoke of certain Hindus and stated that he wished the committee in charge of Hindu affairs in Vancouver would give him orders to fix the two or three traitorous Hindus or any other persons opposed to the interests of the Hindus in Canada, and stated that if they would back him up, he was prepared to fix those same Hindus. These are the gentlemen whom my hon. friend from Rouville champions in this House. They are the men who to-day along the Pacific coast are banded together advocating a mutiny in India at the present time. I wish to quote some other statements because I think it is due to us to know the type of men with whom we are dealing. Up to the present time there has been a tendency among the people of Canada to keep their hands abso-
CMr. Stevens.]
lutely off these men and to deal with them as if they were canonized saints. The rank and file of the Hindus are not anxious to come into Canada. There is a certain ring of Hindus who are anxious to have the bars thrown down, for no other reason than simply that they understand the English language and English methods of doing business, and thus can come here and exploit their more ignorant fellow countrymen. I have a large number of quotations here, and I desire to read a few of them to illustrate what is going on amongst the Hindus on the Pacific coast to-day. The organization stretches from San Francisco to Vancouver. In the Berkeley University, near San Francisco, there are thirty-five . students from India, everyone of whom is an ardent and violent anarchist.
I hold in my hand a paper called the Guddie, which being interpreted means 'the Mutiny.' It is headed:	'The enemy
of the English race.' It has a motto: * O people of India, arise and take up your swords.' This paper is circulated in Sanscrit along the Pacific coast and is read at meetings in Vancouver, Victoria and the other coast cities. It is published in San Francisco. This man Bhagwan Singh, the man whom the hon. gentleman this evening has championed, and others are the men who are interpreting this paper and its articles to audiences of Hindus, very few of whom can understand Sanscrit. Here are some direct quotations from it:
It is 56 years ago since we last fought in India and we would like to fight again. The Russians are making preparations and it is the duty of every East Indian to know about Russia.
Then, it goes on with a long description about the efforts of the Russian people, and continues:
People are still talking about the mutiny they had in Russia, and even up to the present they have not got all that was coming to them, but they are overcoming their oppressors. The difficulty is to start a mutiny, but once the people begin to see that it is successful, all take up arms and help. A mutiny once started in one nation quickly spreads to another. Like a timid rider on a spirited horse, the officers who had been oppressing the people became afraid. If the sovereign of one nation is hanged, and the nation is created into a presidency, the kings of other nations become afraid. Once a nation is free, they soon raise their standard.
And it goes on along that line. I am reading this so that the hon. member for Rouville may understand the type of men that he is associating with himself so freely on the floor of the House. I wish

to ask the House to give special attention to this particular clause:
In the opinion of this paper the societies of India are more intelligent and more dangerous than those at the time of Sultan Abdul Hamid of Turkey. The whereabouts of the man who on the 23rd December, 1912, threw a bomb at the Viceroy of -India has not yet been discovered. The members of the Bengal secret societies rob all the money they can and bring the treasure to their societies. These people are young, well educated, and of good families, and all the money is going into the national fund. This paper is writing to all its people to let them know that the reports received from these secret societies are good.
And so it goes on with many other paragraphs of a similar character. I could read a great deal more, but I do not wish to detain the House. What I want to point out is that when we speak about the loyalty of the Sikh, we should remember that many of the men who are members of this organization and who hold the sentiments expressed in the words I have been reading, wear, as the hon. member for Rouville said, medals which they secured in India as British soldiers. On the Pacific coast, as I have said, there is a society which was organized in Canada for the purpose of participating in the mutiny in India. It has been stated here and in different places in Canada that our attitude on this Hindu question is such as to stir up this mutiny in India. I wish to affirm, and I am sure that anyone who understands the Oriental Taces will agree with me, that the fact that we have not dealt firmly with these people-kindly, but firmly and in a dignified manner-is doing more to stir up a mutiny in India than anything we might do in what may be called a harsh manner. The Hindus of the Pacific coast a few months ago sent a despatch to India in which they said: ' We have all along thought that these Britishers were men of greater influence and power than ourselves, but since we have come to British Columbia we find we can jostle them off the sidewalks if we wish to do so; we can ride in the street cars and sit while their women stand; we have absolutely equal privileges with them, and so on. They submit this as an 9 p.m. argument that the time has arrived when the Hindu should drive the British out of India. The Hindu in Vancouver and on the Pacific coast generally has absolutely no respect for our womenkind; as this despatch said, they get on the street cars and sit while the women stand-I do not say this is a characteristic exclusively Hindu, but it simply indicates that when you extend to this race the courtesies which we think should be extended to a person of our own race, they simply take advantage of such courtesies and treat them with contempt.


William Erskine Knowles: I presume that the
paper containing the seditious articles referred to is published in India?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, it is printed in San Francisco, and is circulated up and down the coast.


William Erskine Knowles: If it is handled
through our mails, the Postmaster General should look after it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The paper is printed in Sanscrit. I would suggest that the Postmaster General might appoint the hon. member for Moosejaw to interpret the Sanscrit.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Will you do it?


William Erskine Knowles: I am afraid I wou.d be dismissed in about a week.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As I say, the paper is distributed up and down the coast, and the more educated Hindus interpret its contents in speeches they make to their own countrymen.
The assertion has been repeatedly made in the public press and on the floor of this House that the former Minister of the Interior, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers), promised the Hindus that their wives would be admitted into Canada. The hon. minister made no such promise. I was there and my colleagues from British Columbia were there, and we know perfectly well that he made no such promise. The hon. minister told that delegation, after they had read to him their plea and their argument, that the Government would take the matter up and let them know in due course what the decision of the Government would be. The decision of the Government was given to them later, and it was not satisfactory. But I wish to draw attention to the demand made in that memorial. The demand was not for the entrance of the Hindu into Canada as a British subject; the point emphasized was that the Sikh should be allowed to enter Canada because of his peculiar fitness and his superiority over his fellows. Dr Sundar Singh, speaking on behalf of the Sikhs, said he did not

ask that the Government should throw open the doors to the Hindus. What is the meaning of that? It means that a religious sect numbering 2,200,000 out of 340,000,000 people was asking this Government to extend a special privilege to them, and to shut out the other 338,000,000. That was the basis of their demand, and that was the basis of the whole argument. They are beginning to find out the weakness and fallacy of it, and are now including others, but that was the demand made of the hon. Minister of the Interior at that time. It shows clearly the selfishness of these people; they are asking for this right not as British subjects, but as a class or peculiar religious sect.
In speaking of this subject, we are constantly confusing the issue. My hon. friend was repeatedly saying 'Sikh' this afternoon, whereas the most ordinary Hindu coolie of India has the same rights under the British flag as a Sikh doctor has. The assertion has been made that we could admit the Hindu into Canada for agricultural purposes. Our experience up to the present time is that the Hindus hive themselves into the large business centers of our provinces and of our country; they have absolutely no tendency to pioneer on the land. I may point out that if these men are serious in their desire to pioneer on behalf of the empire, there is a vast hinterland in India, very sparsely settled; they can go into Thibet, Egypt, or northern Africa, where climatic, social and .labour conditions, and economic and industrial conditions are peculiarly suited to their race. They can go into these countries and pioneer and build up the British Empire. But they do not do that, and never have exhibited any tendency along that line; they simply wish to enter those countries where they can pluck the plums of civilization with the greatest ease. That is the basis of their whole idea.
A question has been raised about the admission of Hindu wives. We have been berated, those of us who are opposed to any relaxation of the regulations, for cruelty because we have not seen fit to give way on this point. It is not a question of admitting the wives o-f Hindus, but whether you are going to open the door to let them all come in. Consider for a moment the wife question: I ask, which wife are you going to admit? The answer is that the Hindus are not all polygamists; but quite

a number are. Supposing a man has five wives and goes to the Government and says: I want you to admit my wife. Which wife are you going to admit?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: All of them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member says all of them. That may be a joke, but are you prepared to introduce or allow to be introduced any such institution in this country? There is the danger of the whole question. We may say: Admit all of them. But by so doing we introduce immediately an institution that we cannot tolerate, because the. most sacred institutions we have in our civilization are our domestic institutions as they exist to-day.
But that is not all. Do you know that 25 per cent of the women in India die prematurely because of physical crimes committed on account of child wifehood? When I tell you that there are nine million wives in India to-day under fifteen years of age, two millions under eleven years of age, are you prepared to allow an institution of that kind to be established in Canada? Are we prepared to accept these people with these institutions? Because if you admit them you must admit them with their institu- [DOT] tions. You cannot say. We admit you, but you must be immediately transformed into a different being from whae you are. We know that these things are so deeply ingrained in the Hindu nature that they are more than his very life. The nine million girl wives are married to men of from twenty-five to forty years of age. A man fifty or sixty years of age may have a wife of ten years of age. This is no joking matter. It simply means that if we allow these people to come in here we must allow them to bring in these institutions.
In 1907 five thousand Hindus came in within a few months. Had the Government of the day not passed that Order in Council -which we welcomed such as it was at the time and weak as it has proven to be and a veritable mine of trouble- had they not passed that order, there would have been one hundred thousand Hindus in Canada. We can say what we like on the subject, but there are 340,000,000 of them, and there was a movement of immigration towards Canada, and that movement exists to-day, the minute you open the doors. I ask. had there been 50,000 or 100,000 of these men admitted into Canada in the years between 1907 and the present, what would have been the condition to-day ? We would have established in the moderate climate of the Pacific coast a people dis-

tinct in themselves, with their own institutions, claiming the rights of citizenship, the right to vote, absolutely controlling the affairs of the country. I lay down the proposition that we have no right to allow to enter this country any people to whom-we are not prepared to extend the franchise. We have no right to encourage men to come to this country to whom we are not prepared not only to give the franchise but to permit them to take places in the parliaments of our country; and if we are not prepared to extend that privilege, we have no right to welcome them.
I ask you to consider for a moment what it would have meant to Canada had such a horde been allowed to come in and to exercise the rights and privileges of citizenship which we have guarded as our most precious heritage. At present in British Columbia we do not allow an Oriental to vote. Some of you may criticise us for that, but the people of British Columbia would absolutely refuse to extend that privilege to them. Why ? These people have a distinct life, distinct in ideals, in habits, in conditions, morals, and every other way. I care not what value you may place on it, it is distinct from ours, and that life and these ideals are what would guide them in their decisions on different matters. Do you mean to say that they would consider our feelings on domestic matters P Not for a moment. The laws that they would put on the statute book would be consistent with their ideals. I could, if time permitted, lay before the House some most startling evidence on the beliefs and tendencies of these people. I speak strongly on this question, but it is not because of any feeling against them individually or as a people; it is because I hold that civilization finds its best exemplification in the civilization which we see in the British Empire and in the other countries of northern Europe. I hold that it is the sacred trust of the Anglo-Saxon and kindred peoples to hold that civilization and to cherish it. I ask you or any intelligent member what would be the effect in the British Empire, what would be the effect in the Dominion of Canada, if we gave unreservedly to 340,000,000 Asiatics the same rights in the empire as we enjoy ourselves. You know that 340,000,000 of these people against the 60,000,000 Anglo-Saxon of the British Empire would undoubtedly mean that within the space of a generation our most cherished traditions and customs and doctrines would be set aside.
I wish also to draw attention to another phase which I consider of very great importance. This aspect of the question has very seldom been referred to. It is, however, not a question that can be lightly set aside or that we can afford to dally over, because it is even more vital than any of those I have spoken of; I refer to the health side of the question. I hold in my hand a report of the Rockfeller Sanitary Investigation Commission in regard to the hookworm and to other diseases to which not only the Hindu but other Asiatics are subject. I know very well that the average person, when such a subject is presented, will say: Oh, well, that is a trival matter; it does not amount to much. If I could impress on the minds of the members of this House the importance of this question I should consider that I had discharged a very important duty. I shall illustrate first in this way. It is estimated that the vitality and the economic usefulness of the white people of the southern states is only forty per cent of that of the people of the northern states, directly traced to the hookworm, which wa3 introduced into the southern states by the South African negroes. That is a very important matter. If you will study the statistics of the American census and other reports you will find that in spite of the fact that the southern states are more fertile and lend themselves more to the advancement of industry, etc., than the northern states, yet there is much less advancement there than in the northern states. You will find that land is of much less value there, although its productiveness is nearly double that of the northern states. Why? Because of the weakness, the lack of stamina, in the people of the southern states. I am told, on the strongest authority, that when an industry is established there, they discount the output of their labour sixty per cent, and they take that into consideration when considering the amount of capital to be invested. I desire to read a portion of a report of the United States Commissioner of Immigration dealing with the hookworm:
Hookworm infection practically ba|lts the globe in a zone between the parallels of 36 degrees North and 30 degrees South latitude, being present to a greater or less extent in all countries lying within those limits.
Then he gives some illustrations:
The Southern two-thirds of China are involved with the infection in many places in the Tang-tse-Valley running as high as 70 to 76 per cent among the farming population. The disease is widely prevalent in the Japanese Empirte; although exact figures cannot be

given, the percentage of infection in that country is believed to be high. Also in the Philippines (32 per cent), and Samoa (70 per cent), as well as in Southern Mexico (12 per cent were reported, probably much higher as a whole), Central America (30 per cent), the West Indies (percentage not available), and Porto Rico (89 per cent).
I would remind the Government that there is a possibility of immigration from the West Indies; therefore this matter is of considerable importance. (Read ng):
Conditions favourable to the propagation of the hookworm parasite and the spread of the infection are: moist and warm climates, where the ground is seldom dry; lack of sufficient protection to the skin in the way of shoes and clothing, the parasite most often gaining entrance to the human body through the soles of the feet; insufficiency, or total absence, of sanitary precautions in the disposal of excreta, permitting the soil and water supply to be filled with the hookworm larvae; the use of human excreta for fertilizing purposes, as is largely done in some parts of China and other Asiatic countries.
Experts of all countries are agreed that the anaemic condition caused by the hookworm parasite is an enormous economic loss, in that it depreciates the working value of the labouring population from 33 per cent to 50 per cent and is a large factor in retarding the development of the communities where it exists. . . It being estimated that from 60 to 80 per cent of the total population of India is infected with the hookworm, it follows . that every country importing coolie labour from India is bringing to its own soil a heavy stream of infection. This is the chief source of the disease in the tropical colonies of Great Britain, where Hindu labourers have been imported under contract to work on the large estates devoted to the raising of sugar, coffee, rubber, etc.
I have read sufficient to impress on the members of this House the seriousness of this question. The hookworm does not show its effects immediately; it takes years sometimes. It is an insidious disease, but the result is inevitable. Wherever the hookworm takes hold, the population is bound to degenerate physically. It is the duty of the Government, in my opinion to make the most careful investigation of this side of the question. If any class of immigration, whether from India, China, or any other part of the world, will introduce into Canada a disease which will devitalize our population, it is the duty of the Government to see that that immigration is barred.
I wish to draw attention to another phase of this question. Asiatics generally, and particularly the Hindus, do not attempt when they come to this country to live according to our standards. I have in my hand an extract from the report of the medical health officer for Vancouver for 1912 which says:

We have always had trouble from overcrowding and insanitary conditions among foreigners, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, Italian. From a sanitary point of view, I consider the Hindu worse than the lowest class of Chinese. It is impossible to conceive a more filthy condition than the manner in which these men live.
I do not wish to lay to the door of any people a charge which is not due. Certain members of the Hindu colony live under ideal conditions. They have become wealthy through exploiting their fellows, but the bulk of the Hindus are just as this report describes. The conditions in which they live are absolutely disgraceful, and the greatest problem is how to raise them from that condition.
We oppose the immigration of Orientals into Canada on another ground. Many years have demonstrated that they will not assimilate. That is of vital importance. We have not begun to assimilate the Chinese, although they have been with us sixty years. Physically, mentally, morally, socially, and in domestic matters, they are entirely distinct from us. They may have their own civilization, about which I have nothing to say at the moment, but I hold that it is distinct from that civilization which we hold dear. They have no conception of our ideals or of democracy; they are totally unfit to exercise the rights and privileges of citizenship as we understand it; and on that score they should not be admitted. Lastly, we cannot hope to preserve our national type if we allow Asiatics to enter Canada in any large number, and it is the sacred duty of the Government and of the people of Canada to preserve that type so far as we are able.


William Erskine Knowles: The first two speeches on this very important subject this afternoon were delivered in a very sane manner and without any political bias. I do not think that any hon. gentleman in this House will say that there was anything in the slightest degree offensive to members on the other side in the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), or of the h n. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). I do not say that I agree with all that has been said by these two hon. gentlemen. But in the main I take the view held by my hon. friend from Edmonton with regard to the conduct of this very important matter, now that there has arisen this new complication over the decision of Chief Justice Hunter. Some observations of my hon. friend for Rouville seem to carry with

them an understanding that did not commend itself to my mind in all its fulness. My hon. friend praised the Japanese very much. I have no objection to them. They are without doubt a very clever people. They have a great many traits that are desirable in the citizens of any nation. But, if I understood my hon. friend from Rouville aright, he thought it would not be a bad thing to let the Japs come in. When the hon. gentleman was in Japan he probably did not mix with the people who come here as immigrants; he mixed no doubt with the bon-ton. If a very prominent minister of Japan came here he would mix with the bon-ton. He would meet the Government and you, no doubt, Mr. Speaker, and move among the very best in the land; but is it fair to assume that the experience which my hon. friend from Rouville obtained in his pleasant journey through Japan would be sufficient to enable him to give a very expert opinion on the desirability of the people who constitute the migrating classes? Let us also observe, as to what my hon. friend from Rouville said with regard to the Hindus, tnat, while it has considerable truth, I think it is not an argument that Will bear the closest scrutiny. He speaks of these people as being British subjects.
My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), whom I do not see in his place, was not quite fair to the hon. member for Rouvillle, when, in commenting on that hon. gentleman's speech, he rang the changes on the idea that the hon. gentleman had 'championed' the Hindus. Of course no one cares very much that the hon. member for Vancouver feels it necessary to frame up a 'Hansard' speech for his people, but he knows very well that the hon. member for Rouville never 'championed' the Hindus and never 'associated himself' with them, to use the words used by the hon. member for Vancouver. The hon. member for Rouville did say that the Hindus were British subjects. Now, if there is any member of this House so much afraid of his own ground that he will not even venture to state a simple fact like that, he only shows the weakness of his position. If my position were so weak that I feared to say that a Hindu was a British subject, the knowledge of that fact would dictate to me the advisability of trying to find some stronger ground. The hon. member for Rouville said that these people were subject to the same King as ourselves; and he urged the critics on the
other side not to get away from that fact, especially as they claimed the monopoly of the jingo talk about the races of the empire having the same King and bowing before the same throne. But I would say to the hon. member for Rouvillle, that, even though these people are British subjects, that does not settle the whole matter. There is many a British subject taken out and hanged until he is dead; many a British subject gets the lash for villainous conduct of which he has been proven guilty. For my part, I think that, British subjects though they may be, the less of the Hindus we have in Canada the better. And while I have no authority to speak for any person on this side of the House except for myself, yet if you look over the record of the Laurier Government you will see that that record justifies me in saying that every man on this side believes as I do, that the less of the Hindus we have the better. The Laurier Government shut the Hindus out; a very few of these people came in during the last year when the Laurier Government was in power only one-fifth as many came in in 1913, under this Government. So, the hon. member for Vancouver need not put on sackcloth and bemoan the bad conduct of the Laurier Government. They may have lacked in cheap talk, in clap-trap and twaddle, but they ' delivered the goods ' to the extent of letting in only one-fifth the number of Hindus that were let in by the Government which the hon. member for Vancouver supports.
The hon. member for Vancouver also speaks of the different kinds of immigration. He should remember that this Government has been bringing in as many Chinese and more Japanese and Hindus than their predecessors, and that under this Government Orientals are being employed in the mines, that very important industry in British Columbia, to a greater extent than they were when the Laurier Administration was in existence. The Minister of the Interior, according to information that appears in ' Hansard,' says that in 1911 the number of Chinese coming into Canada was 6,817; in 1912, there were 7,146; and in the eleven months of 1903, there were 5,988-a little increase since the present Government came into power. With regard to the Japanese in the last year of the Laurier Government there were 727 Japanese entered Canada, and last year 886. Of Hindus there were 14 in 1911, and 88 in 1913. When hon.

gentlemen opposite were in opposition, a constant wail went up from them about the influx of Orientals, and assurances to the public that if they were put in power this immigration would cease. As a matter of fact, we see that there has been a substantial increase in the number of Japanese and a multiplication of more than five of the number of Hindus coming into Canada. So, I think the hon. member for Vancouver had better reserve his criticisms of this side of the House and confine those criticisms to the party of which he is a member of and the Government which he supports.
I have here the report of a question by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) and the answer to that question by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers). The question was:	' How many colliery
workers did the minister find to be engaged in Vancouver Island, B.C., during his recent investigation?' And the answer was : 690. ' How many of these were Orientals? ' Answer: 432; more than two out of three were Orientals. My hon. friend need not attempt to deny these facts. The late Government did not leave any troublesome problem for their successors to deal with. The matter had been dealt with and solved before the Laurier Administration went out of power.
My hon. friend from Edmonton and my hon. friend from Rouville during the course of their remarks kept away from anything of a partisan nature. No one can contradict that. But the hon. member for Vancouver, who was a member of the House when we were endeavouring to solve the immigration question in the West, rose and almost the first thing he said was to the effect that the late Government had made trouble for their successors-that every iota of trouble the present Government had had in this matter arose from the fault and folly and wrongdoing of the former Government. I had hoped that when I spoke I should be able to follow the course taken by my hon. friends who preceded me. But the member for Vaucouver got away from that non-partisan attitude and commenced to lay on the lash to the former Government in the most unkind, heartless way, as he so well knows how to do. I am sorry the hon. gentleman has to leave the Chamber again, but hope he will be back later. He will see ' Hansard,' and I hope he will follow what I say. The hon. gentleman's words were so full of wisdom. Some difference of opinion had arisen between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and
[Mr. Knowles.1
the hon. member for Rouville (Mr Lemieux) as to whether the law laid down by Chief Justice ArchambauJt in the Thaw case could possibly be of assistance in the habeas corpus proceedings in British Columbia. I should have thought it a , great help to follow any habeas corpus proceedings especially when, as in this case, the point involved was one of immigration. But the hon. member for Vancouver brushes both the Minister of Justice and the hon. member for Rouville aside. He does not care what law Mr. Chief Justice Archambault may have discovered or what principles of law he may have enunciated. The very valuable time of the hon. member for Vancouver was grossly wasted, it would appear, by the quotation of remarks of Judge Archambault.
The hon. gentlemen (Mr. Stevens) also went through a long rigamarole about the ethnical characteristics of the Hindu. I do not know that we here are very much concerned with that. It is a problem that most concerns his own Government. If the Hindu is to be kept out, why does not the hon. gentleman hammer his Government for not keeping them out? Hon. gentlemen opposite when they were on this side talked about Oriental immigration, and were not slow to say that it ought to be kept out. In the election of 1908 this was one of the very livest questions in British Columbia; indeed, the livest question possible.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side through their supporters in the Conservative party in British Columbia, went so far that even the prison doors did not frighten them, and they committed forgery for the sake of electing one of their members in the city of Victoria, on a forged telegram; and the member for Victoria, honourable gentleman as he is, I am sorry to say held his seat in this House for a whole term of Parliament, by reason of the effect of that forged telegram and the nefarious work in connection with it. Why does not the hon. gentleman speak his mind to his Government ? Why does he make these high flamboyant speeches, so that he may send out ' Hansard ' to-morrow containing them -and now he is running back and forward to ' Hansard ' room so that his speech will be in apple-pie shape at ten o'clock in the morning, when he can mail it to Vancouver. Why is he so careful to make an academic speech and get off his sophistries ? Why does he not go at it hammer and tongs, and say to the Prime Minister: I will not support you unless you

keep the Chinese and the Japanese and the Hindus out, and be a man of your word, and practise what you preached when you were in opposition ? Surely you and 1, Mr. Speaker, are not to think that our hon. friends opposite meant nothing when session after session they have risen in this House and moved that our Asiatic arrangements were all wrong; that Japan, for example, should not have the control of the number of Japanese who should come into this country, but that that should be placed in our own hands. The hon. gentlemen opposite have been for over two years in power, and they have done nothing to remedy the condition as it existed when they came to office. Is not that hard to believe ? My hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) was not here then, but he is very familiar with the subject. He is an expert on the subject; he lectures to Canadian clubs and to ladies' clubs-I do not suppose they are Hindu ladies' clubs-but he lectures before the Empiresses, or whatever you call their club, as to the difficulties of this very difficult problem. I want to remind him that before he came to the House, when the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) had charge of these matters, and when the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) was closely associated with the question, having been to Japan to endeavour to make an arrangement with the Japanese Government; before the hon. member for Vancouver ever came to the House, the party of which he is a member time and again placed itself on record that nothing would do it but that the control of the number of Japanese which came to Canada should not rest with Japan, but with the immigration officers of the Canadian Department of the Interior. And when these gentlemen got into power, what did they do? It is the same old story. If I commenced telling you, Mr. Speaker, all of the things this Government has not done since it came into power, which it promised to do before it came to power, you would stop me for tedious repetition. But, Mr. Speaker, I can point you to some of the resolutions which our hon. friends opposite used to place in the hands of your predecessor. They proposed motion after motion. How well I rememoer the eloquent words of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). We used to speak of him as the member for North Toronto then, but now, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce, he has become so much more lovable and genial that he is smiling
all the time. Well do I remember his speech, when we used to refer to him as the member for North Toronto. His language is beautiful. I will be able to quote it later on, but this is about what he said: I, for one, would never be a party to anything hut that we ourselves are going to stand at the gates of Canada, and with our own hand we will keep back those who should not come, and with our own hands we will welcome those whom we are glad to meet. I remember at the time thinking, as the hon. member got off his declamation, that surely he had got the idea from Paradise of old and the Garden of Eden, where the angel stood with the flaming sword. And indeed the hon. gentleman told us he was going to be the angel. Later on, I will be able to refer to where he gave us the simile that he was going to stand at the gate, and he would never leave it to the man in Japan, or the woman in Japan for that matter, to decide who should come to Canada, but he himself, and his Government, when they got to power, would settle who should be allowed to enter this happy land. But now these gentlemen have come to power, and they have done nothing to carry out their promises. I have before me but ,one volume of the ' Hansard ' of 1908, and we have there at page 2143 the remarks of Mr. Herron, who represented Maeleod:
It is estimated that a Japanese can live on one-fifth of a Canadian's wages. The better the wages earned by the white labouring men the more money he has to spend and the better he provides for his family. It is not so with the Asiatic, and that is one reason why I think it is wrong that our labouring classes should come into direct competition with the Chinaman, the Japanese, or the Hindu.
Let me take the words of my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), in the .same ' Hansard ' at' page 2074. He spoke .then, as he always speaks, either from the protectionist or from the imperialist point of view, and in this instance he stood on his protectionist leg. He said:
They are a dangerous element in this respect, that they carry a keen competition into all the walks of life.
That is protectionist doctrine.
They do not, perhaps, make money any faster than the ordinary white man, but they hold on better to what they make-
That is protectionist doctrine too.

and send it thence to the country from which they have come. That is not what we want in this country.
The heme market, you see, Mr. Speaker. He goes on:
This is a question of national importance.

Getting at the imperialistic strain now.
It is not confined to British Columbia. We in the East, who have been watching the trend of events, are as thoroughly alive to the danger as our compatriots in the West. Although we are not in as close contact with that influx of Orientals, at present, as to realize what it means, still we are in sympathy with the people of British Columbia in their desire to make that province a white man's country. The first opportunity I had, after the trouble in "Vancouver, of making a public address, I expressed my conviction that this country must, in the near future, restrict the immigration from Japan to a very small number, or actually prohibit it, even should we have to abrogate the treaty.
My hon. friend from Brantford was very clear about it then. He told us that in the near future we would have to exclude the Asiatics from our shores, even to the extent of abrogating the treaty. Have we heard him for the last two years and several months, speaking along this line? There is nothing about abrogating the treaty now; he would not make trouble; he would not rock the boat in which he is riding so nicely and safely with his protectionist sails, and he has forgotten all about the immense interest he took in that question of the British Columbia people, and he is leaving my lonely friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) to fight it out for himself. Then we have the words of Mr. Cowan, the former member for Vancouver, in the ' Hansard ' of 1909, page 60. Here is what he said:
I am standing on the floor of the House of Commons to-day at a great sacrifice to myself *-not because I am a hidebound partisan, but because I believe that British Columbian interests and Canadian interests-yes, and imperial interests-demand that the blunder of January, 1907, shall be remedied and removed from the treaty laws of Canada.
That is why he was here; he came 4,000 miles because he wanted to get that blunder removed. A year ago the present Gov. ernment had the opportunity of their lives to remove that blunder, if blunder it was.
* The whole thing was opened up again; they could take it in hand de novo; they .could handle it as if they never had been before committed to any policy, because they had a new treaty to deal with. And they did not remedy that blunder, but if blunder it was, they made it a greater blunder and gave further concessions to Japan. The remarks of the gentleman, who is now Minister of Agriculture, will be found in ' Hansard' of 1909, page 75, where he said: He is in sympathy with the exclusion of the Asiatics. Mr. Goodeve, now a member of the Railway Board, at page 113 said the same thing. In 'Hansard' of 1909, page 2044, you find a motion made by the pre-

sent Prime Minister, along the very same lines, where he found fault with the condition by which the Government of Japan were entrusted to keep back an undue number of immigrants. He said that was wrong; we must ourselves, he said, settle the matter and we must not allow the thing to be in the hands of the Japanese at all. I find that the hon. gentleman, then leader of the Opposition, moved this amendment:
That this House, while expressing its profound appreciation of the friendly attentions and courteous assurances of the Japanese Government, and while declaring its sincere desire for the most cordial relations with the Japanese people, desires nevertheless to record a strong protest against the policy under which our wage-earning population cannot be protected from destructive invading competition except by entreating the forbearance and aid of a foreign government.
Very strong language. My right hon. friend has now been in power for two and a half years and has deliberately continued and perpetuated that very condition of affairs by which our wage-earning people are only protected by the aid and forbearance of a foreign Government. Is that not a sign that while in Opposition the right hon. gentleman was talking for the mere purpose of catching votes in British Columbia, and that he was preaching something that he was not prepared to carry into effect when he came into power? These are his remarks at page 2043 on the same subject:
It is a subject which may be of transcendent importance as far as Oriental immigration is concerned, it is a question of vital importance not only to British Columbia but to the whole of the Dominion and it is fraught with the gravest consequences not only to us at the present day, not only to the great wage-earning population of the country but to all the people of Canada and to those who will succeed us in the future in developing the country.
Taking that into consideration, how can we reconcile this perfecting and perpetuating condition of affairs which he then so firmly denounced?
In the 1908 ' Hansard ' I have two references by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, both of them expressed in extremely beautiful language. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce says:
When that four hundred millions of people wake to life, their own country will not contain them; their populizing, emigrating hordes will spread out somewhere, and whither will they spread? Will they crawl over those immense table lands which divide them from Europe, and attempt the conquest of European countries, or will they glide easily across the waters on which float navies which will com-

pete with the greatest navies of the world thirty or forty years from now, and colonize on the easily-accessible shores of America, of Australia, of New Zealand? These possibilities, which loom up in the future, may seem to be a long way ahead. But Canada is said to be becoming a nation; if she is, she must take long looks forward and seriously study her policy towards what she thinks lies in the future.
In the 1909 ' Hansard/ at page 47, here is what my hon friend (M.r. Foster) says about standing- at the gate:
This Dominion will never give continued adherence to a policy which takes from it the sovereign power of standing at the front door of Canada, either on its Atlantic or its Pacific side, and saying who shall be admitted to its home and its home privileges.
He says that this country will never continue such adherence. Yet he is a member of the Government which last year did continue the adherence to a policy which takes away from the people of this country this control and leaves it in the hands of a foreign state.
Having regard to the policy of his own party, having regard to these different expressions, resolutions, declarations of policy, speeches and utterances of his friends and of the gentlemen who represented the Conservative Party here in the former Parliament and in the Parliament before that, must not my hon. friend from Vancouver be convinced that he is in the midst of a body of men who are not even as good friends of British Columbia as were the late Government?
There are one or two other matters with regard to the attitude of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the Government to whibh I wish to refer. Tney are also in connection with this Japanese question, which of course serves to illustrate his attitude towards the question of Oriental immigration. I refer to his conduct a year ago. Although while in Opposition he and his followers had spoken and roared like lions over what they thought was the right policy and what they would do when they got into power, how very meek they were when it came to that treaty with Japan last year. On page 6968 of ' Hansard ' of last year, in one of the letters of the right hon. the Prime Minister to the Consul General of Japan there appears these words:
The Imperial Japanese Government are doubtless aware, as the fact Is, that the Immigration Act applies to the immigration of aliens into Canada from all countries, including the British Empire itself, and makes no discrimination in favour of any country.
I refer to that because the party which my right hon. friend leads had said While in Opposition:	' We will discriminate
against Japan because the Japanese will not assimilate with the people of Canada.' Now my right hon. friend deliberately writes to the Consul General of Japan, saying: For goodness' sake approve this treaty which we are bringing before Parliament; we do not discriminate against Japan any more than we discriminate against the British Empire itself. On page 6961 of the same 'Hansard' the right hon. gentleman said:
We have every reason to believe that as soon as the present Bill shall become law the Imperial Government of Japan will be prepared to make and will make a similar declaration with regard to the maintenance of the limitation and control which they have exercised during the past five years in the regulation of immigration from Japan to Canada.
You see the high hopes that the Prime Minister held out. Yet in the future Japan will 'continue to exercise the very same control over her immigrants into Canada which s'he has exercised during the previous five years, the very condition of affairs which my right hon. friend has deplored so much. He says that he is in hopes that Japan will continue to exercise over her immigration into Canada the same supervision as she has exercised during the past five years. Bid you ever hear of such a change? It reminds me a little of the words which I find in 'Hansard' of 1908, on page 2137, on this very same question. They were spoken with regard to Mr. Macpherson, the predecessor of my hon. friend from Vancouver. These are the words uttered by the hon. member for East Grey, the present Speaker:
He (Mr. Macplierson) threatened that if they did not, there might be another Boston tea party. But what a change has come over this hon. gentleman; his fighting vigour has all vanished into thin air, and he roars about as loud as a sucking dove.
These words used with regard to the former member for Vancouver very aptly convey to the country an idea of the transformation that has come over hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. When they were in opposition they professed that they were willing to do everything to protect the labourers of British Columbia; they affirmed that if they were in power they would keep out the Japanese, the Hindus, and the Chinese. But when they came into power they did not one single thing.
I desire to mention something else which shows further the inconsistency of hon. gentlemen opposite, having regard to what to the people of Saskatchewan is a very

live question. I refer to the legislation which our province has introduced with regard to the employment of white girls in places conducted by Oriental proprietors. Hon. gentlemen of the House are aware that over a year ago the Legislature of Saskatchewan passed legislation providing that white girls should not be employed in places conducted by Oriental proprietors, having especial regard to laundries and restaurants, where it was believed that white girls might be led to no good. The validity of that legislation was questioned, first in the lower court, then in the Supreme Court of the province, and finally in the Appellate Court. Just a few days ago the court of appeal in the province of Saskatchewan decided that the law was good, and that the provincial Government had power to pass such legislation. What position are we in with regard to the Japanese? Because of this new treaty which hon. gentlemen opposite made a year ago, our hands are tied, and we cannot make similar legislation with regard to the Japanese. Article 1 of the adhesion of a year ago says that no restriction of any kind shall be put upon the Japanese with regard to ordinary trade, calling, employment or industry. Instead of the Japanese people being treated more strictly by the present Government now than they were formerly treated, their sphere of operation has virtually been enlarged, and the Government has tied the hands of the provincial legislatures and the Legislature of Saskatchewan-and, no doubt, the Legislature of British Columbia-is not able to pass the legislation it would like to pass. Article 1 of the adhesion of a year ago says distinctly that the most absolute freedom shall be given to the Japanese. Let me read it:
The subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall have full liberty to enter, travel, and reside in the territories of the other, and, conforming themselves to the laws of the country.
They shall have the right, equally with native subjects, to carry on their commerce and manufacture, and to trade in all kinds of merchandise of lawful commerce, either in person or by agents or in partnership with foreigners or native subjects.
They shall in all that relates to the pursuit of their industries, callings, professions, and educational studies be placed in all respects on the same footing as the subjects or citizens of the most favoured nation.
By that article our bands are tied, and hon. gentlemen who so long preached what they would do to keep back the tide of Oriental immigration have now given it a
TMr. Knowles. 1
further opportunity to sweep over our lands and have taken a course which prevents the provincial legislatures from acting in this very important matter. The hon. member for Vancouver may throw into this debate just as much partisan feeling as he likes. I should expect that hon. gentlemen opposite would be the very last to mention anything of a partisan nature, because they know that their attitude with regard to the Oriental question constitutes a deception of the people of British Columbia. The hon. member for Vancouver spoke this afternoon just because he feels that he is in a hole, and that a generous distribution within the next few days or weeks of copies of ' Hansard ' containing his speech will do something to haul him out of it, and to 'make the people believe that he is still taking the same attitude in the House of Commons. I can tell him that the people in British Columbia were not born yesterday, and all that flamboyant stuff about fish-hooks and hookworms with which the hon. gentleman treated us will not take away their knowledge of the fact that the Conservative party has played them false; it will not cause them to forget that they voted against the Laurier Government thinking that they would put into power men who would keep back Oriental immigration. But they have been deceived. My hon. friend need not think that by hi3 speech he has redeemed himself, because the people have 'better memories than lie gives them credit for having.


Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria):: I am quite content, like my hon. friend the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles), to give every credit to the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) for the tone of their remarks this afternoon on this very important subject. It is true that so far as they are concerned the debate was conducted upon a high plane, but I cannot help thinking that they know .that partisanship would come afterwards,
10 p.m. because they must have known that the hon. member for Moose, jaw was to follow. The hon. member for Moosejaw has done me the honour to give me some particular attention. I am sorry he is going out, as I wished to say a few words with regard to his remarks. For the third time he has done me the honour of referring on the floor of this House to a certain telegram for which he apparently still holds me responsible. His remarks are neither very original nor very clever.

but I may remind him that very much cleverer and very much greater men than he is have come into my own constituency and have discussed this matter. In fact, when the right hon. gentleman who is his leader was in that constituency in the year 1910 he was able to lay aside the great thoughts which must have occupied his mind and come down to parochial politics and say a few words about that telegram. In addition to that my opponent in that constituency, who is the owner of a daily Liberal paper-very Liberal, almost Grit-featured this particular matter daily throughout the campaign. The net result of all the cannonading that went on was that my majority was increased from 13 to 484. Having stood, as we have, the onslaught of the great guns of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Moosejaw must pardon me if I do not get very much excited at the noise that a political popgun like himself sometimes makes. The hon. gentleman twits the members from British Columbia with regard to the action they took on the debate on the Japanese treaty when that matter was up for discussion last year. I am not now going into an argument on that question. I was not in Ottawa at the time of the debate, but I have read it very carefully since, and all that I wish to say is that I am thoroughly satisfied with the interpretation and construction put upon that treaty by the leader of the Government, and I do not think it is necessary to refer further to that to-night.
With regard to the speeches of the hon. member foT Edmonton and the hon. member for Rouville this afternoon, there was a very great difference between them. I do not wish to misconstrue the language of the hon. member for Rouville, but I must say that the impression he left on my mind was that the Chinese were good and would make good citizens because they were good domestic servants,	and	because we
wanted to trade	with them; that
the Japanese were good, and would make good citizens because they had a very excellent state of civilization; and that the Hindus should be allowed to come in because they were British subjects. I may have misinterpreted the hon. gentleman's remarks, but that is the impression he left on my mind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If that is the impression the hon. gentleman received, it is a wrong impression.


George Henry Barnard: I am prepared to accept the hon. gentleman's statement; but at any rate he radically differed from the views expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), and it is with the latter that I find myself in accord.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend
would allow me to make my position clear,
I might say briefly that I am against the Hindu immigration, but I discussed this afternoon the right of even a Hindu immigrant to claim the benefit of a writ of habeas corpus as a British subject. Second, I am for the Japanese immigration under the terms of the agreement arrived at between the Japanese authorities and the Canadian authorities. As regards the Chinese, I say that there is a very heavy tax imposed upon the Chinese; it cannot be decently increased if we are to have any regard for the market of the Orient, and besides that I consider that the fact that all my friends from British Columbia employ them as domestics shows that after all they are not bad immigrants.


George Henry Barnard: All I can say to my
hon. friend is that I think he had better very carefully revise ' Hansard ' to-morrow morning. I am not going to-night into the question of the merits of Hindu immigration., That ground has been very fully covered by the hon. member for Vancouver and, at any rate, I do not think that it is a matter which admits of any argument from the point of view of British Columbia. One has only to look at the disturbances in Natal to-day, or go to the southern states of America, to see what a racial question means, where you have a large body of citizens in a country who cannot assimilate with the majority. The people of British Columbia will not stand for Hindu immigration. It may just as well be understood, and in no uncertain terms, for as I know these people there-and I say it in all seriousness-I firmly believe that in resisting immigration of that kind they will go to lengths which it is very undesirable indeed should be discussed here.


Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peter borough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a
few words on some points connected with this discussion that I flatter myself are somewhat important and more or less new. First of all, let me refer to the usual severe onslaught made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) upon imperialism. He sets up, as usual, a man of straw and proceeds, with considerable

force, to knock that man down. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that imperialism as understood by the Conservative party and the men who have helped to build up the British Empire, is not such imperialism as he chooses to signify. The imperialism to which he refers is the imperialism of ancient Rome, where Rome was the centre of her empire and solved all her questions herself. This new British Empire is something that historians agree is like nothing that has ever existed before; it requires careful handling, and requires, above all things, a national and truily patriotic spirit. It is upon the sufferance and upon the affections of the people of the British Empire that it is founded and must continue. I would not for one moment vote in favour of a central parliament. I do not know anybody else in Canada who would. That is not the' point. The point is: Are the different parts of the empire prepared at all times to help each other in the storm and stress of empire? Are they or are they not? that is the question, because if they are not, but must meet and deliberate before they will decide upon the question, then they are not of the empire. That is the point that concerns Conservatives so strongly, that is where we differ. We say that we are at all times ready to do*what we are asked, and what we ask the others to do for us, or pray what use on earth is it to talk of making laws for the government of our immigration if we had not Great Britain and the other dominions behind us to back us up in these laws? Japan and Hindustan and China would wipe us out in an hour. We presume that the British Empire is behind us, and surely, if we are at all above the ordinary greedy spirit of a child, we will agree that we will reciprocate and say, whatever they may do, we will always stand behind them. That is the spirit of empire, and the only spirit we dwell upon. We reject the idea of imperialism as talked about frequently for the purpose, I fancy it may be, of irritating Quebec. Quebec has nothing to fear from the imperialism which we preach. We are desirous of preserving the empire as it is. You cannot preserve the empire as it is if you say you are not of the empire all the time, but only a portion of the time and when you may see fit-and I know something of the French-Canadians.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is India ;n the empire? 
Mr. BURNHAM': It may be or may not be; I cannot tell, for the simple reason that India is not part of the empire as we are. I would answer the question in that way. I do not presume to answer it any other way. It is not necessary to go .into the history of India to show that it is not on the same basis in the empire as we are. It is not necessary to interject foreign matters into the debate. Let us stick closely to the question. We are talking about Canada, and we have all we can handle in Canada at the present time. Let me say that we in Canada are desirous of being counted part and parcel of the empire, and not, as set down in a certain Naval Service Act, only when we see fit to adjudicate upon the question. That kind of empire is not our kind of empire at all; and, for my part, I would not belong to a country that would presume on the support of the rest of the empire and would not be man enough to .say it would participate in its support at all times. That is neither imperialism nor Cana-dianism, and I am sure it does not belong to the true spirit of Canadian manhood. Speaking of Oriental immigration-it seems to me inadvisable to refer to this as Hindu, Chinese or Japanese immigration, let us refer to it as foreign cheap labour and then no difficulty will arise. I have no concern about the morals of it, we can settle it on a different basis. The objection to foreign cheap labour coming into the West has been clearly set out as owing to the fact that they depress the rate of wages, and therefore upset the whole stable equilibrium of the industrial world in the West, and therefore in Canada; and I hope that my friend the Labour member foT Montreal (Mr. Verville) will back me up when I say that he recognizes, as the hon. member for Rouville will recognize, that you cannot keep out foreign cheap labour and admit foreign cheap labour's goods.
That is a manifest absurdity. When China develops, when the men who are paid from 18 to 20 cents a day and who are capable of all sorts of skilful culture, turn their energies to producing steel and other manufactured goods, we shall be swept off the decks if we admit them into Canada. Our rate of wages must come down then. That will be the case with all manufactured goods and natural products of every kind. To keep out the people and yet allow their goods to come in, is simply solving half the problem. We must be prepared to maintain

by judicious exclusion our own civilization as much as possible, and we must be prepared to maintain the rate of wages in this country so that the workingmeii, the artisans and the labourers, may preserve that high civilization for which they are working and struggling so manfully. It is impossible to be consistent if you will not afford some protection for the rate of wages in this country and yet allow the products of cheap labour to come in, because that happens to be your idea of free trade. It is the old question all over again. It is all very well to interchange with a country like Great Britain, with a civilization like our own if not higher; but free interchange with a civilization which is lower and where the rate of wages is lower, tends to depress and ruin our civilization. It would be far better for us to put a Chinese wall around this country than to submit to such a degradation. The centre of gravity would be changed from the northern hemisphere to oriental countries, and in 200 years, or less, we would see those countries producing a magnificent civilization while we had sunk to the lowest levels, because we had stuck to a theory which in itself has neither common sense nor consistency.


William James Roche: I quite agree with the hon.
member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that the question of immigration is one of the most important matters that could possibly engage the attention of this House, important not only to the nation at the present time, but for the future as well; but more especially is the question of Oriental immigration of great significance to Canada as a whole. The question has been treated to-night from the standpoint of the Chinese, from the standpoint of the Japanese, and from the standpoint of the Hindu.
Chinese immigration is regulated, as the members of the House well know, by a special Chinese Act and not by Orders in Council or -any departmental regulations. Chinese immigration to this country steadily increased from the year 1904 until July, 1913. When the head tax of $500 was first imposed, there was a considerable falling off in Chinese immigration for a year or a little more, but since then it has been gradually increasing until the middle of last year; but from that time there has been -a marked decrease in immigration. Several reasons may be assigned for that. In my opinion it is in no small degree attributable to a certain circular which was issued by the Chinese of the province of British Colum-80
bia, and circulated in that portion of China from which we draw our immigration. That circular exaggerated the difficulties and hardships which Chinese had to undergo in Canada, and minimized the monetary advantages to a Chinaman coming to Canada. As that was circulated very largely in their own country by their own people, it has had a very great deal to do, in my opinion, with the decrease in Chinese immigration since the middle of last summer. It is somewhat more difficult to realize just why that circular was issued by the Chinese; some people have assigned one reason, others another. Some have stated that a certain number of the Chinese contemplating the possibility of an exclusion law being enacted thought it would be better to discourage at least for the time being, immigration, so as to render such a law unnecessary. Whether that is so I am not prepared to state. Some have attributed it to the fact that the Chinese resident in British Columbia desired to have no more of their fellow-countrymen brought to Canada at the present time to enter into competition with them, and thereby depreciate their earning powers. Again, it has been attributed to the $500 head tax and the passage money. The withholding of the head tax and passage money by the Chinese merchants resident in British Columbia, and those resident in China has undoubtedly had a great effect in limiting the number of Chinese coming into this country. Why these gentlemen refused to put up the head tax is another matter. It may be that in view of tlie financial stringency and the curtailing of operations in which Chinese immigrants could be employed, they thought it advisable for the time at least to withhold the head tax and transportation. But whatever may be the reason, I attribute, in no small degree, the falling off in Chinese immigration to the head tax and the circular distributed in that country, borne 5,800 Chinese came to Canada in the first 11 months of 1913, as I stated in answer to a question by my hon. friend from Edmonton, but the greater number of them came in the early part of the year. During the latter part of the year very few Chinese came to Canada. Since November, 1913, I have not got the accurate figures with me, but very few Chinese have come into this country-comparatively few.
So far as Japanese immigration is concerned, it stands in very much the same position it did when the late Government went out of power. The Japanese made a



certain arrangement with the previous Government to restrict immigration to a certain number. The Japanese Government have lived up to that agreement, so far as our information goes. We have been twitted by the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Knowles) for not having entirely barred the Japanese from this country. It is true that when that question was first brought before this Parliament, it met with certain opposition from the Conservative Opposition of that time on the ground that we were surrendering the control of our immigration, and that we should not leave it entirely in the hand of a foreign Government to say how many should come to this country. But it is one thing to enter into an international agreement and quite another thing to break that agreement when once put into force. And last year when the treaty was being assented to, in view of the fact that the Japanese Government had lived up to their contract, so far as our figures went to prove, we did not feel justified in cancelling that agreement and entering into any process of exclusion. But what we did, and the hon. member for Moosejaw failed to enlighten the House upon this point, was to reserve control over the- immigration hy means of our immigration laws.
This is a distinct reservation which we made in connection with the treaty, and which we can call into requisition when we think it advisable. We have not surrendered our control over immigration even under the signing of the agreement. Last year 886 Japanese immigrants entered Canada. That is to say, that was the number of Japanese passengers coming into Canada. But quite a number of Japanese returned to their own country. The figures supplied us by the Consul-General of Japan at Vancouver, show, that as a matter if fact, the net increase of the Japanese population as the result of last year's immigration was 167. And of the 886 Japanese who came to Canada last year, how many were of the labouring class ? Not a dozen. So, I do not think that the accusation that by passing this Order in Council, 2642, by which we prohibit immigration up to March 31, 1914, of all labourers coming into British Columbia, we discriminated against the white labourers in favour of the Japanese or Chinese, as stated by the hon. member for Edmonton, can justly be made. As to the immigration of Chinese, that, as I have pointed out, is regulated by the Chinese Act. We cannot override that by

Order in Council. And, so far as the Japanese are concerned, the figures, as I have said, go to show that during the whole year there were not more than a dozen of the labouring class who came in.
Now, so far as the Hindus are concerned, that is a vexed question, and one that is far more difficult to deal with by reason of empire relations. The Hindus in British Columbia, a number of them, have been keeping up a strenuous agitation to have the courts declare our Orders in Council invalid because ultra vires. They have gone so far-and this is patent, it is a matter of public notoriety-as to try to bring pressure to bear on the Home Government to have these regulations relaxed in their own interest. The hon. member for Moosejaw says that 88 Hindus came in last year- five times the number under the Conservative Government that came in under the Liberal Government. Fourteen came in in 1911, that is true. It is true also that 88 came in last year. But why ? Was it by reason of the actions of this Government in relaxing the law under which the Liberal Government allowed them to come into this country? No, it'was the very same law, the very same regulation, under which the eighty-eight came in -and the fourteen came in. So, if fault is to be found, it is not with this Government. I do not wish to give a partisan tinge to this debate. In that connection I was rather amused with the hon. member for Moosejaw. He rose with his whole speech prepared, with ' Hansard ' marked to show that Conservative speakers had made certain statements and so on-be had prepared himself to make a partisan political speech. Yet, he accused the hon. member for Vancouver of having introduced partisanship into the debate. He should rather have thanked the hon. member for giving him the excuse to work off the speech which he prepared to make. The hon. gentleman has one advantage over most of us-he had his training in the pulpit. That is apparent to us all. The lack of partisanship, on his part, the dignified manner in which he discusses questions in this House, of course, greatly impresses all hon. -members. The speech which he delivered to-day was in keeping with the others we have heard from him in this House. The hon. gentleman demanded why the Conservatives had allowed five times as -many to come in last year as in 1911. They came in under the regulation which was declared by Mr. Chief Justice Hunter of British Columbia to be ultra vires in that it'did not follow the words of

the statute. The word ' origin ' was used instead of the word ' race ' in connection with ' Asiatic.' Why did not the former follow the words of the statute in making the regulation? If they had done so, we should not have had 88 Hindus enter this country, for they oame in under the defective regulation passed by my predecessor. That could hardly be >an accusation against this Government; and, as a matter of fact, we remedied it. We took advantage immediately of the decision of Chief Justice Hunter and amended the Order in Council accordingly. And there have been no Hindus coming into Canada since that time. So, instead of accusing us of the coming into Canada of 88 Hindus, the hon. gentleman should have accused his own friends of such carelessness, that through a technical defect, 39 Hindus out of 88 were allowed to come into Canada. That will not occur in future as our Order in Council follows the exact wording of the statute.
The hon. member for Kouville (Mr. Lemieux) shed crocodile tears over the case of Bhagwan Singh, who is described as a priest. I am afraid that word 'priest' has run away with the hon. gentleman's better judgment. The hon. gentleman assumed that because he was called a priest he was a superior order of being and would not be guilty of personation, perjury or of false pretences in coming into Canada. But the records supplied us show that the man is not deserving of the title ' priest ' in its highest sense. This is the information we have received concerning Bhagwan Singh:
He did not come into Canada under the name of Bhagwan Singh. Bhagwan, alias Natha Singh, arrived at Vancouver on the 8th of June, 1913, ex Empress of Eussia, travelling under the name of Natha Singh. He claimed to be a Hindu returning to Canada, and that he first arrived at Vancouver in 1906, remaining in British Columbia until the 23rd of October, 1912, when he sailed from Victoria to visit India. He gave the names of several Hindus resident in Vancouver, who came forward and gave evidence that they knew Natha Singh to be a previous resident of Canada. Some time after his arrival, it came to the notice of immigration officials at Vancouver that Natha Singh was not his correct name, and that he had never been in Canada prior to his entry on 8th of June, 1913. This information came principally from articles published in a Hindu newspaper published on the Pacific coast and known as Sansar. In the issue of that paper of
m
the 5th of August, 1913, it was stated that Bhagwan Singh was the correct name of the man in question, and that he had come from Hong Kong and was a stranger in this country. It is believed that this information was published in order to warn the Hindus in Vancouver against the operations of Bhagwan Singh, he having aspirations to be known as a leader of the Hindus and to ibe a director of the Guru Nanak Mining and Trust Company, Limited. In addition to this information, the department received from an official of the Government of India the following particulars concerning Bhagwan Singh:
He is believed to have left India about 1909 or 1910, having got into trouble through abducting another man's daughter, hut no details of this are available. In 1910 he was appointed granthi (reader of the Sikh scriptures and preacher) of the Sikh temple at Perak, Federated Malay States, but was dismissed in the same year by the committee of the temple on the ground that he held advanced views which were objected to, and preached sedition.
I am sure the hon. rnember for Eouville never dreamt for a moment that such serious accusations as these had been made against the gentleman whom he so championed this afternoon. Here is some further information for my hon. friend:
He then proceeded to Hong Kong, and was appointed about the middle of 1910 Granthi of the Sikh temple there. During his stay at Hong Kong he was largely responsible for frequent disputes amongst , the Sikh community, which eventually led to serious litigation. His preaching at Hong Kong, though not exactly seditious, was believed to be directed against the British Government, and his moral character is reported to be bad. In May, 1913, he was dismissed and he left for Japan on the 14th May, 1913, per ss. Empress of Bussia with the expressed intention of proceeding to Canada , or the United States of America.
This information has been gleaned, not only from the Hindu paper printed on the coast, but it also comes from an official of the Indian Government. Not only was this gentleman not the sick man that was referred to by the hon. member, and on whom he wasted a lot of unnecessary sympathy, but I find that a newspaper, published on the steamer on which this gentleman was deported, referred to him in a manner that would indicate that he was extremely robust. It says:
As the ship moved along the wharf two lawyers kept abreast with it, heaping legal curses on the head of the captain. Just the same it was the dungeon for the Hindu until the ship was out of sight of land. Then he was turned loose, only to have the storm break. That he was relieved two days later of a dirk, a foot and a half long, was simply an incident in his career on board. Possibly he


J256 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
was looking for the captain. There is a suspicion that he will lose more than a dirk when he arrives in Hong Kong.
In the end he never arrived at Hong Kong, as he got away from the Empress at Yokohama.
Evidently Mr. Bhagwan Singh was not in bad physical condition; at any rate his incisors seem to have been in good working order, judging by the punishment he inflicted on those who deported him.
The getting of Singh on board was attended with much difficulty, one officer losing part of his ear and another contributing a chunk from his hand.
I commend these reports to the hon. member for Rouville, who has been making a martyr of Mr. Bhagwan Singh. It is shown that Bhagwan Singh entered Canada, in the first place, by perjuring himself. That is not conduct becoming a priest of the temple. Mr. Reid, the immigration official, was carrying out instructions when he did deport him, and was acting under a section of the Immigration Act.
I do not know how to harmonize the views expressed by my lion, friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) with those expressed by the hon. member for Rouville. To-day vve heard the hon. member for Edmonton very indignant at the highly technical decision given by Mr. Justice Hunter, and he asked pertinently whether this Parliament was going to be supreme, and whether this Parliament was not going to have control over our own immigration laws, and be able to say who shall and who shall not come to Canada. And, in view of the hon. member for Edmonton being the father of this Act, I quite realize that, in order to be consistent, he must take that stand. The hon. member for	Rouville, on the other
hand, argued on behalf of the courts, and he defended the court proceedings and he claimed that we could not override a habeas corpus writ, as was done in this case. The same question arose in connection with the Thaw case. Mr. Reid, the immigration officer, in deporting this gentleman as he did, even in face of that wireless message, notifying him that there was a habeas corpus writ out to hold this gentleman; acted under section 23 of the Immigration Act, which says:
No court, and no judge or officer thereof, shall have jurisdiction to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with any proceeding, decision or order of the minister or of any board of inquiry, or officer in charge, had, made or given under the authority and in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the detention or deportation of any rejected immigrant, passenger or other person, upon any ground whatsoever, unless such per-
IMr. Boche.]
son is a Canadian citizen or has Canadian domicile.
That is the section under which Mr. Reid, the immigration officer, acted in deporting this gentleman, and in ignoring what was stated to-day by the hon. member for Rouville to be a habeas corpus writ, but what Judge Morrison, who himself issued the writ, afterwards cancelled as being issued without -complete information. Judge Morrison w-as not in possession of full information at the time, and, as I say, the writ was -cancelled by him. But Mr. Reid acted -by reason of the authority given him under that section, 23, which says that no judige 'has any authority to revise or to annul the decision of the Minister of the Interior or of the Board* of Inquiry. One of the judgments in the case stated that the Board of Inquiry was illegal because only four of its members attended, whereas the full board should have been present. This, of course, was another technical objection. The Hindu newspaper I have read, contains an accusation against the Government, on the allegation that the proceedings of the department were illegal. However, the department made it valid in accordance with that -decision, by constituting at once a full board, and the full board of inquiry again rejected this gentleman. Another -appeal was made to the Minister of the Interior, that appeal was rejected, and, following out section 23, Mr. Malcom Reid, the immigration officer, thought he was -quite justified-and I am -sure the exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) will agree that he was justified-in deporting this gentleman. The bon. gentleman from Edmonton has stated that the remedying of the -defect in regulations 920 -and 926, would, in his opinion, have met the whole situation. I do not think so. It would have perhaps, so far as the decision of Chief Justice Hunter was concerned, but we had information as well, that there was most likely to he a great deal of unemployment in British Columbia during this winter, and in view of the fact, also, that our friends on the opposition side were harking in Parliament -ana out of Parliament the same view, and stating that there were 100,000 men out of work in Canada, we desired to take precautions to -see that the Pacific coast would not toe flooded by an influx of the labouring-class, not only from India but of the labouring class from other countries as well. We did not at all ignore or minimize the difficulties of the position, and we came to the -conclusion, under the circumstances, that we would be justified

in prohibiting the immigration of labourers into British Columbia, for a certain 'specified time. We did that under this subsection of section 38:
The Governor in Council may, by proclamation or order, whenever he deems it necessary or expedient-[DOT]
(c) prohibit for a stated period, or permanently, the landing in Canada, or the landing at any specified port of entry in Canada, of immigrants belonging to any race deemed unsuited to the climate or requirements of Canada, or of immigrants of any specified class, occupation or character.
Under that provision of the law, we passed Order 2642, prohibiting the entry into the ports of British Columbia of all labourers until the 31st of March, 1914. That has met with the approbation of the labouring people in British Columbia, and, notwithstanding that the hon. member for Edmonton thinks that was rather an unnecessary Order in Council to pass, I think it has proved its justification by the practical effect of it since then. How many have come into Canada of any of these classes during this winter? Practically none at all. We are in receipt of resolutions, passed by the labour organizations of British Columbia, asking us to renew it for another six months, on its expiration on the 31st of March.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Are you going to?


William James Roche: We have got it under our very serious consideration, and before the end of March, 1914, we will have propounded our policy upon this subject. I am sure the hon. member is not so very anxious to see the Government meet the situation in a practical manner, as he is to see us put our foot in it, so that he and his friends might be able to make a little political capital out of it.


George Perry Graham: If -we leave you alone,
you will put your foot in it anyway.


William James Roche: Well, we have not done so up to the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that an evidence that there is still unemployment?


William James Roche: I did not say that we were going to renew it; I said that we had it under our serious consideration. We are in hope, as the spring opens up and as the spring work opens up as well, that there will not be any labour congestion, bat plenty of work for the labouring men. We have not definitely decided as to what action we shall take in regard to the matter, but at any rate this is our justification
under that section for passing that Act. It has met with the approbation of the people of British Columbia. We have received resolutions from the labouring element approving it and desiring its continuance.
I do not know that it is necessary for me to enter into any more lengthy explanation of the question, but I would simply say that the Government has no objection whatever to bringing down all the paperB that have* been moved for by the hon. member for Edmonton. There is a phase of this question which the hon. member for Rou-ville discussed when the Minister of Justice was out, upon which the Minister of Justice would like to say a few words.


Rodolphe Lemieux: After this Order ;'n
Council was passed, was there any corres- . pondence with the Government?


William James Roche: I presume that that correspondence, if there is any and if it is not of a private nature, will be included in the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend alluded to the deportation of Bhagwan Singh and the failure to deport some thirty-nine other Hindus. He might well explain to the House how Bhagwan Singh was deported, although there was a writ of habeas corpus to protect him, and why the other men were not deported.


William James Roche: The reason of that is this, Bhagwan Singh was deported prior to the judgment of Chief Justice Hunter. The others were not deported by reason of the decision of Chief Justice Hunter. The hon. member for Rouville will not take exception to that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend read from the Act that no order of a judge had any effect upon the authority of the minister. I take it that the minister did not exercise the authority conferred upon him by the Act, in the case of the thirty-nine Hindus. I would like to know why he did not exercise that authority.


William James Roche: The hon. member scarcely puts my words correctly. I was defending the action of Mr. Malcolm Reid, our officer, in having deported, according to his instructions and under a certain section of the Act, those thirty-nine Hindus whom Chief Justice Hunter had since that time released on the ground of a defect in the Order in Council passed by the hon. gentleman himself. This defect has since been remedied and now, if a similar case arises,

we will deport under the same provision, since we 'have remedied the Orders in Council of 1902 and 1906.


Frank Oliver: The Act says nothing about a defect in an Order in Council. The Act lays the responsibility upon the minister of seeing that the purport of the Act is carried out. He has read to us that the Act authorizes him to refuse to recognize an order of the court. He recognized an order of the court and he has not explained to us why he did so.


William James Roche: The hon. Minister of Justice is going to discuss that point, as he was my adviser.


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY:: I do hot propose to go over the facts in connection with the case, because I think they have been dealt with exhaustively, and in my judgment, satisfactorily, by my distinguished colleague (Mr. Roche). I understand that this evening there was some criticism, or at all events some suggestion or -question, with regard to the regularity of the proceedings of the department, not only in the case of this man Bhagwan Singh, but also in the case of the gentleman with the more pronounceable name of Thaw.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Everybody commended my hon. friend's action in the Thaw case. The question put was this: what was the opinion of the Government, and especially of the Minister of Justice, as regards the writ of habeas corpus as against the deportation clause? And we cited the two judgments of Chief Justice Arohambault, of Montreal, which I think has a bearing on this case, and also the judgment of Chief Justice Hunter of British Columbia.


Charles Joseph Doherty: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: I think it is an important question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a very important question. It is also important, I think- and I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me-not to determine legal questions and absolutely commit oneself until they arise.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They have arisen.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In neither of these cases did they arise, because in neither of these cases was there any valid writ of habeas corpus.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend reads the opinion rendered by Chief Justice Ar-chambault he will see that the Chief Justice decided that, in his opinion and in the opinion of the court, if the writ of habeas corpus had been properly served it would have been maintained by the court.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Chief Justice does express an opinion to that effect, but the hon. member for Rouville is a good enough lawyer to know that those things that are said by a judge which are not necessary to the determination of a case itself, and which do not bear upon the questions upon which he determines - the case, are obiter dicta, and are not a holding of the court. 1 do not say that as maintaining that they are not entitled to very great respect; the expression of opinion of any learned judge is entitled to great respect. Speaking of the particular judge in question, I entertain for all of his opinions, whether they be such opinions as would amount to holdings in the case, or whether they be obiter dicta, the very highest respect. I do not question that the learned judge did express the view that if a writ of habeas corpus had been validly issued, to this extent it would have been effective; that it would have made it the duty of the officer to bring the man before the court. But if I understand the hon. Chief Justice aright, he goes on to say that if, the man, being brought before the court, it was shown that he was being deported under the Immigration Act, then the court would not further interfere. The question upon which the hon. Chief Justice expressed that opinion, as I said a moment ago, did not arise, properly speaking. He discussed it, he expressed his opinion, but the question did not arise because his opinion was based upon a hypothetical case. No writ of habeas corpus was issued and served and because there was none there was no obligation on anybody to

produce the body of Thaw, and there was no contempt of court, there being no need of producing him. That ended the whole matter. The hon. Chief Justice did express his opinion on that matter, and it is an important question. But, as I said a moment ago, it is important for lawyers not to determine questions until the necessity for their determination arises, and I do not want to take upon myself to pronounce or to dogmatize in any sense on the question. But I think there are some things that might fairly and properly be pointed out in connection with that expression of opinion of the hon. Chief Justice. If I understand rightly the reasoning which led the hon. Chief Justice to that conclusion, it is that by Magna Charta it is provided that no man shall be deprived of his liberty except by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land. The hon. judge goes on to point out that the great and effective means of protecting the individual in the liberty to which he is entitled is the writ of habeas corpus, and he dwells on the importance of that writ. Nobody will question that. But he goes on to say that in his opinion this Parliament could suspend that writ. I have not the slightest doubt of that. I have never conceived, and I do not think it at all a correct conception, that Magna Charta limited the supremacy of parliament. Magna Charta is the charter of the people's liberties that protects those liberties from invasions on the part of the king. Parliament is acting in the very exercise of those liberties and their own constitutional rights, legislating in the exercise of the powers resulting to them from the confidence that the people repose in them, and to my mind Magna Charta never was intended to apply to or to restrict the exercise of the powers of Parliament. If it be so, then Magna Charta is a restriction on the power of the people to govern themselves through their own representatives, and you have the instrument that was devised to insure the people's liberties against encroachment of royal authority twisted to deprive the people's representatives, in Parliament assembled, of the right to legislate as they deem best in the interests of the people. So, for my part, with all respect-and a very profound respect I entertain for the hon. Chief Justice- Magna Charta had absolutely nothing to do in this case. In the Imperial Parliament this supremacy is undenied and undeniable. I think the saying is perfectly good law: that Parliament can do anything except make a man a woman. Now, in so far as the subject matter of any 
legislation falls within the legislative competence of this Parliament of Canada, I have no hesitation in saying that this Parliament has, on that matter, all the power that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has. That being so, there is, to my mind, no shadow of a doubt that this Parliament has power to say that, under certain circumstances, there shall be no writ of habeas corpus. There remains the question of whether this Parliament has said it, and on that question I do not know whether the Chief Justice may have meant to make a distinction or not, but he seems to have recognized in this Parliament the power of suspending habeas corpus. He says, and he says something that is perfectly true, that the exercise of that power must be by express terms; you cannot conclude to the suspension of habeas corpus by mere inference, you cannot base it on some casual expression. I absolutely and thoroughly agree with the Chief Justice in his proposition, but I say that, in my judgment-and I want to recall the fact that I am not pretending to give an absolute final decision if it were in my power to do so on this question-by this legislation the habeas corpus is expressly excluded. The error-I -say it with all respect, because, disagreeing with the hon. Chief Justice, I must necessarily be of the opinion that he has fallen into error-the error of the Chief Justice is that he confounds ' express ' with ' specific,' and the authority that he cites in support of his proposition does not say that you cannot, without specifically mentioning the habeas corpus, exclude it. He is citing from a previous judgment of Mr. Justice Ouimet.
I cannot admit that an Act of the importance of the Habeas Corpus Act can be amended, and the rights of the subject intended to be preserved under it can be curtailed by a casual expression found in a subsequent statute. To amend an existing Act there must be a clear and precise' enactment. Such amendment cannot be interpreted as resulting from mere implication or inference.
Now that is the authority on which the Chief Justice relied. With that I absolutely agree. But turn to the words of this statute, section 23, and let U3 see what is left to inference and where is the casual expression that does not avail to remove the habeas corpus. What is the wording of the section?
No court and no judge or officer thereof shall have jurisdiction-*
It goes to the very root of things, to the jurisdiction.

-to review, quash, reverse, restrain or otherwise interfere with, any proceedings, decision or order.
Now I say, that is in express language, not by inference, not by any casual expression. It is the express declaration of this Parliament that no court and no judge, by any means whatsoever, shall have jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the minister or of the authorities under that Immigration Act. Now there is nothing to be inferred, there are no casual expressions to be interpreted, there is the most absolute form of language, the most absolute negation of jurisdiction by any process whatsoever. The very first thing that you require to enable a judge to issue a writ of habeas corpus is that he should have jurisdiction. Action of a judge without jurisdiction is vain, and this Parliament has said in so many words there is no jurisdiction in any judge, by any means whatsoever, to interfere with the action of the authorities under the Immigration Act. So that while, as I said, I am not laying down any final opinion, and I do not want to make any pretension that what I say settles this matter, I do say that it is fair to point out that the reasons upon which the Hon. Chief Justice made that expression of opinion, which was not a holding of the court, do not, when carefully examined, justify that opinion. I certainly would be surprised if authority could be found for that other proposition which is necessary to maintain the opinion, namely, that you cannot suspend or abolish, with regard to particular proceedings, the Habeas Corpus Act without specifically saying: habeas corpus. It is not in the genius of our laws to attach so grave an importance to the use of specific words. To my mind, Parliament has clearly said that by no means whatsoever has- any court or judge any power to interfere with an Order under this Act; and the writ of habeas corpus being one of the means by which a court or judge might otherwise interfere is one of those things that is excluded by the express terms of tnis Act. Now, of course, I do not want to run away to extravagant conclusions. If one did, one might find oneself in a very bad box because it might turn out, as it turned out in the judgment of Chief Justice Hunter, that a person who thought he was acting under this Act was not acting under it at all, then he would be in a very embarrassing situation if he had taken on himself to determine tnat he was acting regularly, and that there was no habeas corpus.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will recollect occasions when habeas corpus was suspended in this country; for instance during the rebellion of 1837.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I believe that is true. There you are dealing with an Act to specifically suspend habeas corpus in specific cases and for specific reasons, but if you are going to say no court or judge shall interfere why should you have to enumerate every possible process by which a court or judge ever interfered? This Parliament having made up its mind that this Act was to be administered under the responsibility of the minister, said in absolute express terms: * no court or judge shall interfere by any means whatever.' I think I may fairly assume that the hon. Chief Justice cited all the authority he relied on, and I pointed out that it does not seem to justify the conclusion he reached. I do not want to be misunderstood in that regard. Any officer who believes he is acting under that Act and finds 'himself served with a writ of habeas corpus would do well to think twice, yes, three or four times, 'before he takes upon himself not to produce the man, because it may turn out as it turned out in the case judged by Chief Justice Hunter, that an officer who thought he was deporting a man under this Act was not so deporting him; and if it turned out that an officer was not protected by this Act because he was not absolutely acting within its letter and spirit he would be in a very bad position indeed and liable to all the penalties that would fall on a man for contempt of court. Therefore, it behooves any officer who finds himself in the position that he believes he is carrying out that Act to think perhaps more than once before taking on himself not to obey a habeas corpus writ served upon him. I see no reason so far as my examination of the question has gone, to doubt that if the official is absolutely assured that there is absolutely no room for question but that his proceeding is absolutely and perfectly regular under that Act, and if he is in a position to demonstrate that before the court from which has issued the writ of habeas corpus he would by so doing justify his non-production of the individual on whose behalf the writ was issued. I do not say I am settling that as an absolutely final thing because we are dealing with a new law and one that, so far as I know has yet to be interpreted by the courts. It becomes everybody to speak with

diffidence in the expression of any opinion as to its interpretation. I expressed this opinion only because I know that perfectly legitimate curiosity 'has been expressed as to the views of the Minister of Justice. That is why I have given my impression of the effect of that Act.
Take the case of Thaw. The way that case went out to the public and what the real situation was, were different in some very material respects; in the very substantial respect for instance that the public thought a writ of haheas corpus had been served, but it had not. More than that. Mr. Thaw appealed to the court for a writ of habeas corpus. Simultaneously with his appeal to the court he appealed to the minister. If he passed out of the control of the men in whose hands he was and came under the control of the minister it was by his own action, on his own appeal. He went to the courts for habeas corpus and he came to the minister with his appeal. The minister had no alternative but to determine that appeal. The law lays his duty down perfectly clearly. It puts on him the determining of such an appeal and then goes on to say if that appeal be dismissed the appellant shall forthwith be deported. There was a writ of habeas corpus addressed to certain officers down in Coaticook, and an appeal by Mr. Thaw to the minister. The law stated what the minister had to do, and there was no shadow of pretence that any proceeding whatsoever had been instituted against or affecting the minister who was brought into this case by Thaw himself by means of his appeal. The minister's duty was prescribed for him clearly and unquestionably. There has been some suggestion that the minister was open to criticism because he undertook to decide his own rights and because he sought to assert a right without letting the court pass upon it. The minister was not in the slightest degree concerned with any right on his part. The minister was faced with the question what was his duty. The law spoke directly to the minister and said, there is your duty, deport that man forthwith. Let us assume that the minister knew there was a valid writ of habeas corpus ordering the gentlemen who had constituted the court from whose decision the [DOT] appellant appealed to the minister that they must produce his body before the King's Bench. Was the minister justified in refusing to perform his perfectly clear statutory duty because there was a proceeding directed against the officer who had held the man down there? I may say that I did not

have to decide that question for the reason that the writ was not served. There was moreover no writ because the judge who issued the writ had no jurisdiction under the Habeas Corpus Act to issue it. I submit however that if that had been the most valid writ of habeas corpus ever issued so far as its form was concerned, the minister would have been not merely within his rights in carrying out that statute but in the simple performance of his duty. I realize how scandalizing that proposition may be to the average lawyer. It was very scandalizing to myself at first. But let us look for a moment at the situation d-ealt with by that statute. The laws as a rule deal with i>eople in the country, the authority the courts exercise over people in the country. This law deals with the people who are knocking at the door. Mr. Thaw was not in Canada in the eye of the law. he was standing knocking at the door, and the parliament of Canada had said: The Minister of the Interior shall be my porter; he shall stand at the door and he shall say whether the people who knock shall be permitted to enter, and the courts shall not have anything to say about it. That is what the law said, and that is the situation that was dealt with; and it is well to bear that in mind when people get a little hysterical about this involving danger to our liberty. In the first place, the provision has no application to citizens of Canada. There is, of course, the question of deportation of a man who, having come into Canada, has committed some crime; but that is a different branch of the question and I am not going into that. We are dealing now with the case of a man who had not come into Canada and had no right to come in till he passed the scrutiny of the officer, and who this law provides has no right to the protection of the Canadian court. It might have been wiser for Canada to say:	The
courts shall determine who has the right to come into Canada. But that is not what Parliament said; it appointed the Minister of the Interior, through his officers and with proper machinery, to decide these matters, the courts being denied any power in regard to them. That being the law, it is the duty of the minister in charge to carry that law into effect. I point this out in order that the matter may be understood by those who say that the action in the Thaw case is a menace to our liberty. What was done in the Thaw case was done quietly, calmly and considerately, and with full sense of responsibility. If any mistake

was made, I made that mistake. I am convinced that no mistake was made. As it happens, there could be none, because there was no writ. But, had there been a validly served writ, while I am not called upon to determine that question, I am prepared to say that I would have acted just as I did when there was no writ. But I wish to be perfectly understood as saying that in my opinion it is wise for everybody who has anything to do with the administration of this Act to be absolutely certain that the person whose case is to be decided comes within the Act. and, if there is even a shadow of doubt, it is better to obey any habeas corpus proceedings that may issue and allow the courts to decide. And that is exactly what happened in these thirty-nine cases which were brought before Mr. Chief Justice Hunter. In those cases the Chief Justice decided that the immigration officers were not acting within the Act. I do not wish to say anything that would indicate an opinion on my part as to whether the judge was right or not. The judge pronounced judgment and we submitted to it.
I regret that it has been necessary for me to take up so much time in dealing with this question; but it is perhaps not entirely useless that I should, as clearly as I can, set before the House the view I entertain [DOT]as to the effect of this legislation. The wisdom or unwisdom we are not here to discuss; the question that arose-and it was an important question-was what the law means and whether it was properly executed. As I have said, in nothing I have said save that in the particular cases "there was no validly effective writ, do 1 claim to be supported by the judgment of dhe Court of Appeal or of Chief Justice Hunter, nor do I admit that I was in -opposition to either, except to the extent I have pointed out as regards the opinion of the Hon. Chief Justice Archambault. The questions remain res integra. There has been no authoritative interpretation by the courts of that particular section, and therefore the interpretation is not in any sense settled nor do I pretend that what I have said settles it. But I recognized that, the questions having arisen, and the desire having been expressed to hear my opinion upon them, and in view of the action I felt called upon to take in the Thaw case, it was proper I should meet that desire. For this reason I have endeavoured to pat clearly before the House what I do think about the effect of this legislation.


Frank Oliver: In case the amended
Orders in Council are in force and acted upon, is there any assurance that a judge, let us say at Halifax, will not find some flaw in them such as the judge in Vancouver found in the original orders? And I wish to ask a question based on the answer to this.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am afraid no one can be safely insured against what the courts may decide. We have done the best we can do to make Orders in Council that shall be in absolute conformity with the statute, and we have profited by what Chief Justice Hunter pointed out as being, in his view, objectionable in the others to meet, so far as it seemed to us possible, the objections that he made. Now, whether some ingenious counsel will raise some other objection which will meet the approval of some other learned judge is something against which I would not like to guarantee the public or our officers. I fancy that any one going into that insurance business would have to charge high premiums or he would find himself coming out at the wrong end.


Frank Oliver: Now, another question
based on that answer:	Is there not some
means whereby an authoritative opinion can be secured which will absolutely establish that the regulations are good law?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Better abolish the Bar.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And the Bench.


Frank Oliver: Is it not possible, for
instance, to get a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which would in effect establish the regulation as law beyond question?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We might arrive at it, possibly, by making some one of these cases a test case. There are difficulties in the way so long as the proceedings are initiated by writs of habeas corpus. I would not-undertake to speak with regard to all the provinces, but I do not think I am mistaken in saying that in some provinces at least, upon a writ of habeas curpus, where the liberation of the party is ordered, there is no appeal effective to continue his detention. The hon. gentleman can understand how far it would go to defeat the purpose for which the habeas corpus exists if the proceedings could be carried from court to court and the individual in whose case the court of first instance had pronounced favourably to him was kept in jail in the meantime. I do not say that that difficulty

is insuperable, but I am afraid it is. We might possibly make a reference of the question. But, as I understand the effect of a judgment on a mere reference like that, while, no doubt, it would be respected, I do not know that it would absolutely preclude the judges from deciding otherwise in particular cases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has not the Supreme Court already refused to give a judgment on a reference ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware that it absolutely refused. In the marriage case, one of the judges expressed the view that one portion of the question need not be answered, and, in the same way, their Lordships of the Privy Council found it unnecessary, in view of one answer given in that case, to answer the second question. But, I do not think it ever has been said by the Supreme Court-well, perhaps I had not better enter into that. My fellow-countrymen have a saying that it is time enough to bid the devil good morrow when you meet him, and as some of these legal conundrums may be described as being the very devil, perhaps it is well not to anticipate them.


Frank Oliver: May I ask the Minister of Justice-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that it is rather a violation of the rules of debate to keep putting a series of questions to an hon. member, and asking him to answer them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is for the liberty of the subject.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With reference to that,* it is for the Speaker to say when it is a question of the liberty of the subject.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will not appeal from your ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Oliver: The Speaker is the exclusion officer in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.
Tuesday, March 3, 1914.