1923-02-21

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of W. J. Lovie be taken from the list of members comprising the standing committee of the Library of Parliament and that that of A. L. Beaubien be inserted in lieu thereof, and that the name of A. L Beaubien be taken from the committee on Railways and Canals and that that of W. J. Lovie be inserted in lieu thereof.
That the name of P. Elliott (Dundas) be taken from the list of members comprising the select standing committee on Railways and Canals and that that of M. N. Campbell be inserted in lieu thereof, and that the name of M. N. Campbell be taken from the committee on Marine and Fisheries and that that of P. Elliott (Dundas) be inserted in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Redistribution

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Introduction of bills, Bill intituled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code,"-
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker I have been induced by a number of organizations in my own constituency, as well as by organizations throughout Canada, to introduce this bill. I appreciate the responsibility which devolves upon me as the sponsor of it, but feel somewhat encouraged when I realize that on several occasions the measure has been introduced in this House. Mr. Bickerdike, who was for some time the member for the St. Lawrence division, Montreal, first brought this bill before the Canadian parliament. He set forth the arguments in its favour very forcibly, and I suppose that to-day we may reap some of the fruits of his noble efforts. It shall be my aim in presenting the argument in favour -


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman but simply to remind him that at this stage of the proceedings the explanation of the bill should be general and brief. It is on the second reading of a bill that a more elaborate explanation of its purpose is given. I would therefore ask the hon. member to state simply and briefly the objects of this bill.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, having introduced this bill at a previous sitting of the House, I was under the impression that the duty now devolved upon me of moving its second reading.


Hewitt Bostock: This is only the first
reading.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the hon. member has made the mistake of thinking we are taking up Item No. 3 under Orders of the Day where Bill No. 8, to amend the Criminal Code is set down for second reading. This appears to be a new bill which the hon. gentleman is introducing.


William Irvine: I have no other bill to
introduce, having already introduced a measure for this purpose.


Hewitt Bostock: I see on the order paper, under the heading "Introduction of Bills" a bill to amend the criminal code standing in the name of the hon. gentleman. Does the hon. member wish to drop that bill?


William Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not
wish to drop my bill proposing to amend the criminal code.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
House that the hon. member have leave to introduce the said bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. RINFRET:: Will the hon. member
please explain.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I can explain
the bill in one sentence. It calls for the repeal of the provisions of the criminal code demanding capital punishment, and the substitution of life imprisonment for the death sentence.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Look at page 19 of the order paper.


Hewitt Bostock: I must apologize to the
hon. gentleman and to the House. Evidently an error has been made by one of the clerks, -not one of the Clerks of the House but one of the clerks who have charge of the drafting of the order paper. I shall deal accordingly with this clerk. I understand that this bill has already been introduced and that it has reached the stage of the second reading, although it appears on the order paper again under, the heading of "Introduction of Bills." The House will therefore now proceed with the second order under "Introduction of Bills," the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24 to amend the Copyright Act, 1921.
He said: In June 1921 a Copyright Act was passed by this parliament, but that act has never been proclaimed. I believe the Minister of Justice of that day found some objections raised by other countries. It is to enable Canada, first, to comply with the provisions of the British Copyright Act, and, secondly, to comply with the provisions of the International Copyright Act that we propose very slight amendments to the Copyright Act of 1921.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Before we proceed to the question, I rise to what may be described as a point of order. The Redistribution bill was read a second time yesterday, but no motion was made to refer it to a special com-
Redistribution

mittee, but still the order seems to be dropped from the order paper. It should, I think, appear under Government Orders to-day.


Hewitt Bostock: As the right hon. gentleman states, the bill was read the second time yesterday, I think, and I understand the government intend to present a motion referring the bill to a select committee. It is in the hands of the government.


Arthur Meighen: It should be on the order paper.


Hewitt Bostock: It will be on the order paper in due time. Notice will be given.


Arthur Meighen: It cannot be dropped off the order paper merely by the second reading. It should appear on the order paper.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to members of the House to discuss the principle of this bill before it goes to committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say it was my intention to move to-day for a reference of the bill to a special committee. The reason I did not do so was because I was anxious to make sure, before making the motion, that the number of members on the committee would meet with the general acceptance of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I am not finding fault with the fact that the motion has not been made. I am only pointing out the fact that it is off the order paper. I think it should be there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the bill "was read the second time yesterday no motion was made for a reference to a select committee and for that reason no motion should appear on the order paper.


Arthur Meighen: I do not agree with that. If the motion had been made for reference to a special committee, and that motion carried, then it would be off the order paper till the special committee reported, but seeing there was no reference at all, it should appear on the order paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Journals show that the bill received its second reading, and I presume it would have been in order to have made a motion to-day referring the bill to a special committee. That was the intention but the fact that no motion is made does not alter the privilege of the government to introduce it. With the permission of the House I would like to say to my hon. friend that the government is of the view
[Mr. MeighenJ
that the work of this committee would be more expeditiously and efficiently carried on if it were a small committee rather than a large one. In 1903 the Redistribution committee consisted of seven members. In 1914 the number was enlarged to nine. The government had thought that if this year the Redistribution committee were made eleven in number, having regard to the different groups in the House, that would be a fairsized committee, and perhaps the most efficient to deal with this particular measure. However, I have gathered that hon. gentlemen opposite feel they would like to have a somewhat larger committee and the government would be quite prepared to concede a committee of fifteen, but I think to go beyond fifteen would make the committee unduly large for the purpose. It does not mean limiting the number to fifteen, because any group may have sitting with their members in the committee just as many of their own party as they may wish to consider the measure. A reference to the rules of the House will show that where a committee is larger in number than fifteen-rule 11, I think, -some special procedure is necessary to have the larger number adopted, if exception is taken to a committee larger than fifteen. I hope under the circumstances that my right hon. friend and members also of the other group will find it possible to agree with the government that fifteen would be a sufficiently large number for the purpose of working out the details of the redistribution. Just as soon as we can get to an agreement on this matter I shall have pleasure in moving the reference of the bill to the special committee.


William Findlay Maclean: I did not receive an answer to the question I asked a minute ago as to whether an opportunity would be given to this House to discuss the principles of this measure before it goes to committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yesterday my hon. friend had that opportunity, as every member of the House had. The bill was read the second time yesterday, and if he missed that opportunity, he no doubt on the third reading will have a chance to say something.


Arthur Meighen: I know it is out of order, but I would like to say a word in reference to the Prime Minister's remarks. A committee of more than fifteen does seem large, but the conditions are unique at this time. Of course it presents no difficulty to the Prime Minister on his side of the House, because they will insist upon having a major-

Questions
ity in the committee. That leaves us in a minority of the minority, but our duties are just as onerous as those of hon. gentlemen opposite in relation to redistribution. We had, and undoubtedly will have again, a candidate in every one of the 245 constituencies in the nine provinces, to be looked after. Hon. gentlemen to my left are in the same position. Consequently our work is just as irksome as that of hon. gentlemen opposite. A committee of fifteen leaves us only three. Three were found too few when it was tried. Four were found to be few enough. We have agreed to four, and I put it to hon. members opposite that four are none too many-in fact four are insufficient-to undertake the detailed, burdensome work of reviewing the redistribution of nine provinces and 245 seats.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. HARRIS:: 1.	Was a special train provided for the inspection trip of the new Canadian National directors in January, 1923?
2.	If so, how many private cars were attached to such special train, and how many cars in all composed 6uch train ?
3.	How many directors took part in such trip and between what points, and at what times did such directors take part in the trip?
4.	What was the cost of such trip to the National Railway Company?
5.	What practical results were obtained by such trip?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.	'
2.	There were no private cars so-called attached to the train. There were, however, seven business cars, these being the cars which are used by officers in the performance of their work. In addition to these cars, there were: one baggage car for the train crew, and an observation car in which delegations were met and received.
3.	Three.
4.	It is not possible, without a great deal of accounting work, to develop the cost of the trip. There was no unnecessary cost since the trip was an essential part of the duties of the directors.
5.	The president and directors saw the lines and terminals, and became acquainted with the character of the traffic, its volume, the needs of the property, and, what is more important, the qualifications of various officers; but the trip was primarily for jthe benefit of the president in order that he might collect
sufficient information to intelligently develop an organization for the administration of the property, and decide the personnel of the railway system. It would be impossible to administer such a property without information of this character.


Mr. HARRIS:: 1.	Was a special train provided for the inspection trip of the new Canadian National directors in October, 1922?
2.	If so, how many private cars were attached to such special train, and how many cars in all composed such train?
3.	How many directors took part in such trip and between what points, and at what times did such directors take part in the trip?
4.	What was the cost of such trip to the National Railway Company?
5.	What practical results were obtained by such trip?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	There were no private cars so-called attached to the train. There were, however, seven business cars, these being the cars which are used by officers in the performance of their work. In addition to these there were: one baggage car for the train crew, and an observation car in which delegations could be met and received.
3.	Six.
4.	It is not possible, without a great deal of accounting work to develop the cost of the trip. There was no unnecessary cost, since the trip was an essential part of the duties of the directors.
5.	Directors saw lines and terminals covered on trip and discussed various railway matters with the general and territorial officers who travelled on trains from time to time over their respective territories. The directors obtained a comprehensive view of the properties and the various important questions at issue.	,


PURCHASE OF LAND IN ALBERTA
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Were lots 31 and 32, block 8, in the town of Vermilion, Alberta, bought by the government? If so, when?
2.	Who were they bought from?
3.	What was the price paid?
4.	Considering the vast amount of coal lands owned by the government and the tremendous quantity needed for the National Railways, has the government cosnidered the advisability of developing mines to supply fuel to the said railways.


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	(a) Yes; (b) 12th September, 1913.
2.	Mr. W. J. Seed.
3.	110,000.
4.	Up to the present, the advisability of developing mines to supply fuel for our rail"
Questions

ways has not been considered. However, it is the intention of the management to give consideration to the fuel question with other problems * that are now confronting Canadian National Railways.


ST. LAWRENCE POWER DEVELOPMENT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to two separate applications to the Federal Power Commission at Washington by the American Super Power Corporation at Buffalo to develop power on the St. Lawrence river in the towns of Waddington, New York, and Messina, New York, 920,000 h.p. for the United States and 680,000 h.p. for Canada, including plants along the lines of the proposed St. Lawrence waterways with locks proposed of 30 feet draught as part of the power scheme, plants of which to be located at Ogden island and Barnhart island?
2.	What steps does the government propose to take to see that the interests of Canada are safeguarded from a navigation and power standpoint?
3.	Does the government propose to renew and continue negotiations with the government of the United States for the development of the St. Lawrence river along the lines of the report of the International Deep Waterways Commission, 1922?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The government has received no official intimation of either of the applications referred to.
2.	As no development can take place on the St. Lawrence river without consideration by the Dominion government, there will be ample opportunity for safeguarding Canadian interests.
3.	The government does not deem the present an opportune time to negotiate with the government of the United States for the development of the St. Lawrence river in the manner referred to.


GOAL IMPORTS AND PRODUCTION
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	How many tons of anthracite coal was imported into Canada from the United States during the twelve
^months just past?
2.	What was the total cost of this coal in Canada and what was the total amount of duty paid on same?
3.	How many ton3 of soft coal of all kinds were imported into Canada from the United States during the past twelve months?
4.	What was the total cost of this coal in Canada and what was the total amount of duty paid on same?
5.	What total amount of hard or soft coal of all kinds was mined in Canada during the past twelve months ?
6.	What amount of the said coal was mined in each province?
7.	What quantity, if any, of the said coal mined in Canada was exported to the United States?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Twelve months February 1, 1922, to January 31, 1923.
1.	Imports anthracite coal from United States
entered for consumption in Canada. Tons. 2,676,036
2.	Value of anthracite coal as entered
for consumption	 $	23.364,988
Duty paid on same	 Free

3. Imports bituminous coal from United
States entered for consumption in
Canada				10,327,450
4. Value of bituminous	coal as	entered	for consumption..	
$	37,578,581Duty paid on same.	4,680,1165 and 6.	Provinces Anthracite	Bituminous	LigniteTons	Tons	TonsNova Scotia	5,456,000	New Brunswick .. ..	272,000	Saskatchewan	296,000Alberta	42,000	2,706,000	3,228,000British Columbia. ..	2,927,000	465	Total For Dominion..	42,000	11,361,465	3.524,0007. Quantity domestic coal exported to	United States.. ..	1,526,105



AGRICULTURAL INSTRUCTION ACT

Mr. SENN:: Referring to the Agricultural Instruction Act passed in 1919, which will lapse on the 31st of March next:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to pass a similar act ?
2.	If so, what is the amount per annum proposed to be distributed ?
3.	When will this act be brought down?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	It is not the intention of the government to pass a similar act this session, but provision is being made for the payment to the provinces of a grant to assist in agricultural instruction.
2.	This grant will amount to $900,000.
3.	Answered by No. 1.



PORT OF BELLEVILLE OFFICIALS

Mr. PORTER:: 1.	Have the Harbour Commissioners of the Port of Belleville been dismissed from office?
. 2. What complaint, if any, was made against them and by whom?
3.	Is it known to the government that the Harbour Commissioners of the Port of Belleville lately discharged, Lt. Col. A. P. Allen and Corporal B. L. Hyman, are returned soldiers with overseas service in the late Great War?
4.	Are the persons appointed to succeed the above named commissioners or either of these returned soldiers or did either of them have any family representation in the late Great War?
5.	Is the government aware that a number of G.W.V. of Belleville were capable and desirous of filling these positions in the event of their comrades being dismissed, and if so, why were they not appointed?
6.	What qualifications superior to that of the late commissionners, has either of the present occupants for filling such position, and in what manner is it expected they will be able to discharge the duties of their office in a superior manner to their predecessors?
7.	Has the light-house keeper at the Port of Belleville been discharged?
8.	What complaint, if any, was made against him and by whom?
9.	Who has been appointed to succeed to the position and what are his special qualifications that his predecessor did not possess, and in what respect is a successor expected to discharge the duties in a manner superior to his predecessor?

Questions
10.	On what date was the said light-house keeper discharged, has any one been temporarily appointed to succeed him and is such temporary employee drawing salary since his appointment, and what duties (if any) has he performed since then and what duties are to be perfonned during the winter season at this office?
11.	Why was not a returned soldier appointed either temporarily or permanently to this position?
12.	What was the age of the present occupant of this position at time of his appointment?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Former Harbour Commissioners of the Port of Belleville have been dismissed from office on two occasions, first in 1911 and second in 1922.
2.	In the case of the dismissals made in 1911, complaint was made by Mr. E. Guss Porter, M.P., that the then commissioners were guilty of political partisanship, on the strength of which complaint an order in council issued discontinuing their services. The dismissals in 1922 were made in accordance with the general policy adopted by the government in connection with other harbour commissions in Canada.
3.	The government has no information. Inasmuch as there is no authority for the payment of salaries for these positions, the question of overseas service did not arise.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	See answer to No. 3.
6.	The government has no information as to the extent to which the qualifications of the present occupants are superior to those of the former commissioners. The government expects the present occupants will discharge their duties in a more satisfactory way by reason of the fact that generally speaking their views are in harmony with the government's policy.
7.	Yes.
8.	Charges of political partisanship during the election campaign of 1921 were preferred against him by Mr. Carr, Secretary of the Belleville Liberal Association, who wrote the department enclosing affidavits from B. A. Sanford, Chas. Barnhart and Edward Ethier, charging Mr. Smith with political partisanship.
9.	No permanent appointment has been made. Applications for the position, to be received not later than 3rd February, 1923, were invited by the Civil Service Commission. The Department of Marine and Fisheries has not been advised whether any selection has yet been made by the Civil Sendee Commission.
10.	His services were discontinued by order in council of 20th November, 1922. John C. Weir who was employed as keeper of this light prior to 1912 was selected as temporary keeper, pending a permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission, by reason of
the satisfactory service performed by him while previously employed coupled with the consideration that three of his sons enlisted for war service, two of whom served overseas. He is performing the duties ordinarily attaching to such office and receiving the authorized remuneration therefor. The duties during the winter consist of the care of the government property.
11.	See answers to Nos. 9 and 10.
12.	His age as stated on application form is 53 years.



SALES TAX ACT

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1. Has any order in council been passed during the current fiscal year adding to the list of exemptions under the Sales Tax Act?
2.	If so, what are the exemptions added and in what cases do they apply?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: No.



JUDGES' SALARIES

Mr. BINETTE:: 1.	What has been the cost to the Dominion government during the fiscal year 1921-22, for judges' salaries in all provincial courts?
2.	Of this amount, how much was paid to the several provinces of the dominion for each court, either appellate or original jurisdiction, superior courts, country or district courts, etc.?
3.	How much has been paid by the Dominion government during the fiscal year 1921-22, for travelling expenses of above mentioned judges, in each of the several provinces ?


Hon. Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	$1,828,990.31.
2.	Ontario: Court of Appeal, $46,000; High Court Division, $113,909.87; County Courts, $260,167.74; District Courts, $68,615.61; Total $488,693.22.
Quebec: Court of King's Bench, $108,612.90; Superior Court, $324,500; Circuit Court, Montreal, $22,500; Total, $455,612.90.
New Brunswick: Court of Appeal, $27,250; King's Bench, $37,000; County Courts, $29,-
000.02; Divorce Court, $500; Total $93,750.-
02.
Nova Scotia: Supreme Court, $62,887.09; County Courts, $34,999.92; Divorce Court, $500; Total $98,387.01.
Prince Edward Island: Supreme Court, $26,548.38; County Courts, $15,000; Total $41,548.38.
Manitoba: Court of Appeal, $41,451.61; King's Bench, $55,750; County Courts, $43,340; Total $140,541.61.
Saskatchewan: Court of Appeal, $29,209.67; King's Bench, $66,362.90; District Courts, $84,916.50; Total $180,489.07.
Alberta: Supreme Court, $92,344.42; District Court, $57,722.17; Total $150,066.59.
*92
Questions

British Columbia, Court of Appeal, $45,250; Supreme Court, $59,166.61; County Court, $68,404.90; Total $172,901.51.
Yukon-Territorial Court, $7,000.
3.	Ontario, $38,136.25; Quebec, $20,409.10; New Brunswick, $7,310.05; Nova Scotia, $5.818.36; P. E. I, $581.00; Manitoba, $7,645.'75; Saskatchewan, $15,248.00; Alberta, $26,396.95; British Columbia, $20,199.65; Yukon, $80.00; Total $141,825.11.



ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES

Mr. SENN:: 
Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	The testing of cattle under the accredited herd plan was discontinued on the 10th January as regards herds not previously tested; but the re-testing of herds already tested once was continued, as also the testing of additions to those herds.
2.	It is considered advisable to clean up herds now under the test rather than start new herds, and limitations as to staff and money for compensation do not permit of doing both.
3.	Herds that became accredited between 1st April, 1922, and 31st January, 1923: Prince Edward Island, 10; Nova Scotia, 7; Quebec, 68; Ontario, 152; Manitoba, 21; Saskatchewan, 5; Alberta, 6; British Columbia, 9; total, 278.
4.	Amount of indemnity for the period from 1st April, 1922, to 31st January, 1923,-$775,-997.66. Of the above, $468,581.33 was in connection with accredited herds, and $307,416.33 in connection with municipal testing.
5.	The inspectors of the Health of Animals Branch are in many cases not exclusively engaged in tuberculosis work; and even then their time is devoted to municipal testing as well as accredited herd work. In the period April 1st, 1922, to January 31st, 1923, 131,355 tests were made, 52 per cent of which were in connection with accredited herd work.
It is	estimated	that 49-.7	per	centof the	time of	our staff	was	devoted to	tuberculosis work, and	on	thatbasis, 52	per cent	of 49 -.7 per	cent of
amounts paid in salaries and travelling expenses would represent the amount chargeable to accredited herd work. The amount of 
salaries chargeable is, $67,473.83; travelling expenses, $36,060.29; supplies, tags, thermometers, etc., $3,277.04; tuberculin used, $10,267.66; total, $117,078.82.



JUDGES' PENSIONS

Mr. BENOIT:: Is it the intention of the government to abolish at this present session, pensions of judges appointed in the future?


Hon.   S@: No.	:
ONTARIO SOLDIER SETTLEMENTS Mr. ROSS (Kingston):
1.	How many returned soldiers have been settled by Soldier Land Settlement Board in counties of Fron-tenac, Addington and Lennox respectively?
2.	How many have been salvaged in each county?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	Frontenac, 18, Addington and Lennox, 22.
2.	Frontenac, 2, Addington and Lennox, 4.



PETERBORO INSPECTOR OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Mr. BRETHEN:: 1.	Who is the inspector of weights and measures for Peterboro district?
2.	What salary in full did he receive in 1922?
3.	What moneys did he collect for 1922 as: (a) inspector (b) cartage?
4.	What percentage of said moneys was received by
government ?	[DOT]


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	G. H. Howson.
2.	Salary $1,785.00. Bonus $138.69.
3.	(a) $3,255.05, (b) $892.35.
4.	One hundred per cent.
STAMPS ON CHEQUES Sir HENRY DRAYTON:
1.	Have aDy rulings been made for the directio* of the public or the banks as to affixing stamps on cheques under the legislation of last session? If so, what ruling or rulings?
2.	What are the penalties for failure to affix stamps or sufficient stamps on the cheques?
3.	Have any proceedings been taken in respect of such breaches?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1. The following regulations have been approved by the Minister of Finance, under the provisions of Section 4 of the act of 1922 to amend the Special War Revenue Act of 1915, whereby cheques embossed with words indicating that the stamp tax has been paid, may be used by persons, firms or corporations to whom a license is issued:
July 7, 1922.
1. Application for a license (form L 20) shall be forwarded through the collector of the nearest customs and excise port to the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, Ottawa, hereinafter called the commissioner, in an envelope marked "embossed cheques.''

Questions
The representations made in such application shall be verified by the statutory declaration of the applicant.
2.	There shall be forwarded with the application for license a requisition (form E 159) for the number of embossed cheques required by the licensee, together with a certified cheque, by way of deposit, payable to the Receiver General for an amount equivalent to the estimated tax, as per assertions 1 (a) and 1 (c) on application for license plus twenty-five per cent. The commissioner may at any time require a larger deposit.
3.	Cheques will be embossed and issued to a licensee in the manner and subject to the conditions hereinafter defined.
4.	A licensee shall keep an account in which shall be entered, at the time each cheque is drawn, particulars of the cheque, showing the serial number, the date of issue, the amount and the sum due as excise tax thereon. A separate account shall be kept for each bank or branch of a bank on which the licensee draws cheques. On or before the fifth day of each month the licensee shall forward through the Collector of Customs and Excise at the port through which the license was obtained to the commissioner the account or accounts, ns the case may be, for the preceding month, verified by the statutory declaration of the licensee and accompanied by a certified cheque payable to the Receiver General for the total sum of tax shown ns accrued by said account or accounts; and all bank statements of cheques debited to the licensee's account, and all relevant books of account of the licensee shall be open to inspection and audit for the purpose of these regulations by officers of the Department of Customs and Excise, and such audit shall be made by officers of the department nt such times as are deemed necessary.
5.	When a further supply of embossed cheques is required, requisition for same will be made by the licensee on form E 159.
6. Each embossed cheque shall have printed or lithographed on it, in a prominent manner, the name of the licensee, the number of license and the name of the bank on which the cheque is to be drawn; and no person other than the licensee whose name is so printed or lithographed shall draw such cheque, and no bank shall pay an embossed cheque drawn by any person other than the licensee whose name is so printed or lithographed, or on which the license num-her docs not appear.
7.	In the event of a licensee abandoning his license there may be repaid to him the amount of his deposit in excess of the amount payable in respect of the stamp tax on all embossed cheques issued by him less the cost of embossing and transportation of that portion of unused cheques remaining on hand, and the unused cheques must be returned to the commissioner. If a license is cancelled for a violation of any of the provisions of the Special War Revenue Act, and amendments, or of these regulations, or for any other reason, no portion of the deposit will be repaid to the licensee and he shall be liable for any further amount payable by him in respect of stamp tax on embossed cheques which he has issued and he shall return to the commissioner all unissued embossed cheques.
8.	The design to be embossed on cheques shall be in a form to be approved by the Commissioner and shall contain the words "tax paid" and the number of the license.
9.	The commissioner may refuse any application for a license if in his judgment, which shall be final, the number of cheques issued by the applicant is not large enough to justify the granting of a license or for any other reason which appears to the commissioner to warrant refusal.
10.	The blank cheques must be forwarded to the American Bank Note Company, Ottawa, who must be advised by the shipper as to the quantity and description of blank cheques in the consignment, the outer covering of the parcel being also marked to indicate the name and address of the shipper. Packages, the gross weight of which exceed 90 pounds, if shipped from Montreal, 60 pounds if shipped from Toronto, or 40 pounds if shipped ffom Winnipeg, must be forwarded by freight. Under these weights shipment must be made by express. From each of the three places mentioned the parcels are to be forwarded by Canadian government railways or Canadian National Express (as the case may be), charges collect.
Shipments made from points other than the foregoing are to be forwarded by the same lines where practicable, the method of transportation being determined by cost. If the lower rate is provided by freight, shipment must be made accordingliy, and vice versa.
11.	When cheques are shipped for embossing, the top sheet of each lot must indicate the position where it is desired the stamp should be placed, as well as the gauges to which the sheet was fed. The impression will be made as near to the point indicated as the circumstances will permit.
12.	The paper must be of such quality, .thickness and colour as to be suitable for receiving the impression of the die, a red coloured ink being used for this purpose.
13.	The paper must be flat and uncreased, and should not be gummed, folded, perforated or rouletted before it is sent to be stamped.
14.	Each cheque for which a separate stamp is required must not be less than five inches in length, nor less than one and a half inches in depth.
15.	All cheques must be presented for stamping in sheets of at least four on.
16.	Where blank cheques do not meet the requirements of sections 13 and 15 the charge for embossing [DOT] same in lots under 15,000 will be 70 cents per thousand cheques, and in lots of 15,000 or over, 20 cents per thousand cheques.
17.	Bound forms will not be accepted.
18.	In designing cheques, a space of one and a quarter inches in depth and one inch in width should be provided for the embossing of the stamp.
19.	Requisitions for the embossing of less than one thousand forms will not be accepted.
20. In shipping blank forms a sufficient quantity should be provided to allow for spoilage in embossing, and all cheques, etc., should be carefully counted before being shipped.
21.	Spoiled forms will not be returned.
22.	Blank forms left over when the requisition has been filled will be returned upon request.
23.	The department will not accept any responsibility for injury to material in the process of stamping, nor for loss of material, which may arise during transportation to and from Ottawa.
24.	Refund of excise tax may be allowed on embossed cheques returned to the department, when it is established to the satisfaction of the commissioner, that the cheques although drawn were for some valid reason never negotiated, but on which the excise tax had been paid. Minimum amount of tax for which a refund will be allowed under this section shall be five dollars.
25.	The regulations heretofore issued by the Department of Customs and Inland Revenue covering the embossing of a two cent stamp on cheques and money orders will continue in operation as per circular G. 26 or amendments thereto.
26.	Application and requisition forms L 20 and E 150 may be obtained from collectors of customs and excise.
Section 10 of the regulations of 7th July, 1922, is cancelled and the following substituted therefor:
Motions

July 25, 1922.
10. The blank cheques are to be forwarded to The American Bank Note Company, Ottawa, by express or freight, whichever is the lower rate, charges in all cases "collect," with indication on the package of name and address of the shipper, and the shipper will by letter advise the company as to the quantity and description of cheques in the shipment.
2. As provided by Special War Revenue Act of 1915-part 3 and amendments thereto and sections 164 and 1035 of the Criminal Code.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MILLAR:: 1.	How much grain has been sold on the Winnipeg sample market in each of the last four years?
2.	What amounts have been received by the government from the proceeds of terminal elevator overages for the last year, for which returns are available?
3.	Did the government propose, towards the close . of the 1922 shipping season to waive the regulations forbidding foreign boats carrying Canadian grain between Canadian ports?
4.	If so, did any Canadian carrier or carriers make objections, and what are the names of such objectors?


DORCHESTER PENITENTIARY
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Was any merchandise, material, or supplies of any kind purchased on emergency requisitions for use at the [DOT] maritime penitentiary at Dorchester, New Brunswick, between January 1, 1922, and December 31, 1922?
2.	If so, what goods were so purchased, what quantities of each kind and on what dates?
3.	From what persons, firms or corporations were said purchases made and what is the business address of said persons, firms or corporations?



PRIVATE BETTING

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved:: That, in the opinion of the House, it is expedient that subsection two of section two hundred and thirty-five of the Criminal Code be repealed, and that it be enacted that the provisions of subsection one of said section, and of sections two hundred and twenty-seven and two hundred and twenty-eight of the said code shall not extend to any person by reason of his becoming custodian or depository of any money, property, or valuable thing staked for the purpose of becoming the property of the winner of any lawful race, sport, game or exercise or to a private bet between not more than ten individuals who are not engaged in any way in a business of betting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With reference to the proposed resolution of my hon. friend, would it not be possible for him to put what he has in mind in the form of a bill? I doubt if anyone reading this resolution, could tell what it means, and if my hon. friend would put his ideas in the form of a bill, we would have them clearly before us, and the House could discuss them much more intelligently.


William Charles Good: I do not know that I have any particular objection to proceeding along that line, except that I am not in a position myself to draft a bill, and perhaps some delay might be involved in discussing the matter.


Hewitt Bostock: I can inform the hon.
gentleman that the law officers of the House of Commons will be only too pleased to lend their services for drafting any such public bills. Shall I say: "dropped"?


William Charles Good: No, I would not like to
give my consent to dropping the resolution without a little further consideration.
Motion stands.



GREAT LAKES DISARMAMENT

Arthur Meighen: For a copy of all papers, letters, writings, correspondence, documents, etc., of any kind, passing between the government of Canada and the government of the United States relative to the Great Lakes Disarmament question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I explained to my right hon. friend, I think, when this motion was called before, that this matter is at the present time one of negotiation between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, and I think he expressed the view then that it would not be in the public interest to bring down documents that were the subject of negotiation.


Arthur Meighen: If there are matters in
negotiation, I stated that they might be rightfully considered confidential, and withheld; but surely that does not apply to all the correspondence that has taken place up to now. I know that when we left office-because I had special charge of this matter- what I described as a consensus ad idem was arrived at. That is to say, the minds of the two governments were in agreement, although that agreement was not reduced to writing or signed. I know of no reason at all why the correspondence up to that point should not be brought down. If the correspondence since conducted by this government is considered by them as confidential, why then, notwithstanding my recollection of their vigorous protests to us when we were in the same position, against withholding confidential documents, I thoroughly agree that they should not be brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall have
much pleasure in bringing down all the correspondence to which my right hon. friend has just referred.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Motions

Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, and other writings	relating	to
the strikes of workers in shipping, railway and other crafts in 1922 and also for copy of the opinion of the Department of Justice given in relation to the conduct of either employers or employees affected by such strikes.
He said: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) has pointed out that the adoption of the motion as drawn would entail a great deal of work. I am quite content to change the wording of the resolution with a view to making it somewhat shorter. I desire to hold the request for the opinion of the law officers, and in addition restrict the remainder to:
All communications of whatsoever sort exchanged between the departments of government or any member of any department of government with any persons or companies respecting the Sydney coal strike of last winter. All communications made to or received by any department of the government and by the railways in connection with the shop trades' controversy of last summer, and concerning the Alberta coal strike in the fall of 1922, especially the correspondence between the Department of Labour and Mr. John L. Lewis of Indianapolis, the president of the Labour Union.
I think that very materially reduces the list. Perhaps my hoa. friend would like to give it consideration.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: It would simplify matters a great deal if my hon. friend would amend his motion. The correspondence between Mr. John L. Lewis and myself has already been asked for by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and, I understand, has been or is being given to him. That disposes of that order. The other day my hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) struck from his motion the order respecting the other crafts and said he was willing to have the motion confined to the production of correspondence regarding shipping and railway strikes in 1922. There were no such strikes, and therefore there could be no correspondence in that respect. As I have stated in two letters to my hon. friend in regard to this matter, we shall be glad indeed to give any information we have if he will only indicate in his motion what he wants.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend will see my request in Hansard and he can no doubt let me have an answer to-morrow or the day after.


James Murdock: I respectfully insist
that such request should be submitted in
an amended motion for the production of papers.
Motion stands.



SIR HENRY THORNTON

Arthur Meighen: For a return showing all correspondence passed between the government of Canada and Sir Henry Thornton leading or in any way relating to the contract made with Sir Henry Thornton for the management of the National Railways, and as well a copy of said contract.


George Perry Graham: I have no objection to the motion, but there was no correspondence.


Arthur Meighen: It may be that I am relying too much on the press, but I understood that an application was filed. Would that not come within the terms of this motion?


George Perry Graham: It would if there were an application, but there is not.


Arthur Meighen: The press is wrong again. It is frequently doing the government cruel injustice.


George Perry Graham: 1 will not say until I see what the press says.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That, in the opinion of this House, the Copyright Act, 1921, should be amended by dropping out the clauses thirteen, fourteen, fifteen and twenty-seven, in regard to licenses; and that said Copyright Act, so amended, be enforced immediately.
He said: In view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb), has introduced a bill to amend the Copyright Act. 1921, which will afford a full discussion of the question covered by this motion, I withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.



CAPE BRETON COAL STRIKE

William Irvine: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents of all kinds which passed between the Minister of Militia and Defence and the Dominion Coal Company of Nova Scotia, in connection with the sending of troops to Cape Breton during the strike of the employees of said company last August.


Hewitt Bostock: I might draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the title of the minister is now Minister of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Pan-American Union


Mr. McMURRAY:: For return showing the amount of fire insurance placed on property of soldier settlers in the province of Manitoba, under the Soldier Settlement Act; the names of the brokers who wrote the said insurance and the amount placed by each. The total amount of premiums paid to each of the several insurance companies placing said insurance, showing which of the said companies are Canadian, British and American, respectively.



WINNIPEG COAL PURCHASES

Edward James McMurray: For a copy of all tenders, contracts and other documents pertaining to the coal purchased by the Dominion government during the year ending January 31, 1923. in the city of Winnipeg, used in connection with federal buildings, etc., including a list of the persons from whom said coal was purchased, the amount purchased in each case, and the amount paid to the Canadian Coal Sales Company, Limited, for coal supplied as above mentioned.
SUPPLIES FOR IMMIGRANTS Mr. CHARTERS:
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, papers, and other documents relating to the over-charging of immigrants for supplies at the port of Quebec.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS REGULATIONS

Mr. MACLAREN:: For return showing all regulations and conditions passed by the Governor in Council under section 11, chapter 13, of the statutes of 1919, being the Canadian National Railway Act.



BANFF SPRINGS AND CAVE

Mr. SHAW:: For a copy of all papers, memoranda, correspond- [DOT] ence, reports and other documents of all kinds, relating to the discovery of the "Cave and Basin" and the "Hot Springs" at Banff, Alberta, and relating to the acquisition of raid properties by the Dominion government and the payment therefor.



BANFF PARK-POWER RIGHTS

Joseph Tweed Shaw: For a copy of all papers, letters, correspondence, memoranda, reports, and other documents, relating to an application made during 1922 by the Calgary Power Company for additional power rights and privileges in the Banff National park.



BELGIAN EXPOSITION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I would call the attention of the government to a despatch in the issue of February 1st of Belgique Canada, to the effect that next summer a commercial exposition is to be held in Belgium in which practically every country has expressed its intention to participate, but that Canada has

declined to be represented. As trade between the two countries is increasing, our participation in this exposition might be a good means of stimulating our commercial relations, and I should like to know if it is the intention of the government to have Canada represented at this exposition.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we realize the importance of an exhibition in Belgium, and I thank my hon. friend for bringing the matter to the attention of the government. We shall take his observations under consideration.



THE BANK ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: May I ask the government if they are ready with their bill to amend the Bank Act; and, if not, when they expect to bring it down?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not able to fix a particular time, but the matter is engaging our earnest attention and the bill will be brought down at an early date.



ANTI-COMBINES BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: May I put a similar question to the government in regard to the bill foreshadowed in the Speech from the Throne to safeguard consumers and producers from trusts, monopolies and combines?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I promise my right hon. friend that, the bill will probably be brought down next week.



PAN-AMERICAN UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I have observed in the press lately accounts of delegations waiting on the government to induce Canada to join something that is described as a Pan-American Union. May I ask the government if they contemplate binding Canada to this or any similar union other than the union we are in?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not received an invitation to join such a union. When it comes we will consider it. We will not refuse or accept the invitation before it is made.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask what has been the character and purport of the representa-

Immigration Act
tions made, and what is the attitude of the government towards them?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not aware of any representations other than one or two personal interviews that have been had within the last day or two. There may be some com-munciations that I do not call to mind at the moment, but nothing of an authoritative or formal character has taken place.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister will not say what is the purpose of the invitation or what the attitude of the government is?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I find difficulty to describe the purpose in the mind of any one else. A gentleman interviewed me yesterday in reference to a Pan-American Union. What his motive was I could not say.


Arthur Meighen: I did not ask for his motive, but for the purport of his request.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just told my right hon. friend that no request has been made.


Arthur Meighen: Then the interview apparently was aimless?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not place any construction on the interview.


Arthur Meighen: It is another case of the press being wrong, I suppose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is another case of my right hon. friend being wrong.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved the second reading of bill No. 6 to amend the Immigration Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I need not long detain the House in this matter; while it is an important one, it is not elaborate in its details. When it was read the first time I mentioned briefly the purport of it. The object of this bill is to confirm in this parliament a right that I think none will deny- its absolute right to control and regulate immigration into this country of whatever source or origin. It is not confined to some kind of immigration, it applies to all kinds. The bill provides that no immigrant shall enter Canada without permission of the Minister of Immigration. Who shall gainsay the reasonableness of that, or who shall claim that that is an unfair provision as regards immigrants or as affecting any other nation?
There is ample provision in the bill under the various sections further on to provide for the entrance of those who wish to come for short periods on account of business or health
or pleasure. In fact there is more ample provision in this respect than is customary in such legislation. There is also provision made for the exemption from its operation of all British subjects-at least, all white British subjects.
Similar legislation was passed in New Zealand in September 1920 after a very full debate. The New Zealand parliament is much smaller than ours, but 30 per cent of the members took part in that debate, which would be equivalent to some seventy-five or eighty members discussing it in this House, and would mean a debate with us of some eight or ten days. So it shows the matter was very thoroughly debated in that parliament. And it is worthy of note that at the close the bill was passed without a division, although there were objections taken to it from both sides of the House.
I wish to quote from the speech of the hon. Premier of New Zealand when he was introducing the bill. It will give a good idea of the point of view from which he regarded the measure. He said, among other things:
Now this bill is the result of a deep-seated sentiment on the part of a huge majority of the people of this country that this Dominion shall be what is often called a "white" New Zealand, and that the people who come here should, as far as it is possible for us to provide for it, be of the same way of thinking from the British Empire point of view-I might have said the Imperial poipt of view, but I say from the British Empire point of view-and that they shall be people who will be loyal to the empire, loyal to the crown, and loyal to this country when they become its citizens. There is no injustice intended to the people of any other country who come here; nothing of that sort. We intend to treat them fairly and well, whether they are here now or whether they come in the future. But the point I wish to make- and I want to emphasize it-is that we have a perfect right to safeguard our immigration policy and to be quite sure that the persons who will come and take up their residence here as permanent citizens shall be people of whom we shall be able to approve.
Further on he remarks:
I have mentioned the question of alien immigrants, and honourable members know that at present what is provided to safeguard foreign immigration is the education test. Well, the education test-and members know it as well as I do-has been of very little value indeed, and we are dropping it. The provisions of this bill will take its place, and I feel certain if we can bring it into operatiop-and I have no doubt of that- that they will be found much more effective. We are doing away with the finger-print as being unnecessary. I know it is very much resented by people who are compelled to leave their finger-prints in this country, and under this bill it will no longer be necessary.
And again at a later stage, he said:
Clearly we want to keep the race as pure in this Dominion as it is possible to keep it. I have not the slightest doubt but that that object will be effected by this bill.
The first objection made by the leader of the Opposition in tb*' New Zealand House
[Stage Direction]


Immigration Act
consisted almost entirely of a protest that the bill had not been introduced sooner. That will give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of how the opposition there regarded the proposed legislation. In the course of the debate another hon. member said:
There is no question that in recent times we have had grave reason to fear that that policy is being menaced because of the large influx of Asiatics during the last twelve months. So far as the general policy of the bill is concerned, I think the House will agree with the Prime Minister that some effective steps must be taken to deal with the menace, which undoubtedly exists.
Further on he quoted Sir Edward Grey in connection with the Chinese in South Africa and added:
The question is, what sort of civilization are you building up? Are you building up a civilization in which all the citizens are capable of the full rights of citizens, or a civilization the elements of which are bound to conflict in their customs, their habits and their policies? If you are doing so, you are building on an unstable foundation.
And so on from various other members of that parliament. Now, that was the general tone of the debate when the matter was introduced. The objections made were, in the main, three in number, with which I will deal briefly. The first was that the measure might prove to be ultra vires, or at least unfair to the Hindus, who were fellow British subjects and technically and biologically of the white race. "The second was that the matter could more properly be dealt with by means of diplomacy, and the third was that it would be putting in the hands of the Minister of Immigration a dangerous power which might under certain conditions be used unfairly and unjustly.
With regard to the first objection that it might be ultra vires, the people of New Zealand did not appear to have much apprehension in that regard. As a matter of fact, the act was passed by the Dominion and approved by the Imperial government and no protest was made by any nation. It is not necessary, therefore, to waste time in a discussion of that point, because time has proved that it was intra vires.
So far as the objection regarding the Hindus is concerned, the Hindu question is a burning one in New Zealand. There are 60,000 Hindus in Fiji, which is a comparatively short distance from New Zealand; large numbers .of them were at that time flocking to New Zealand, and the question was a very burning one in that country. It may be said that this is a question that does not primarily interest this parliament, because the immigration of Hindus into Canada is supposed to have been stopped. But I wish to warn the members, particularly those from British

Columbia, that the conditions have recently changed. A number of years ago the government of the day passed an order in council which prohibited immigration of Hindus into Canada. This order in council provided that all immigration of persons who did not arrive in Canada by continuous journey from the country of origin should be stopped, and one of the main effects of that provision was to stop the very large immigration then coming to Canada from India, because we have no direct steamship service between India and Canada. The matter was the subject of much discussion at that time, some ten or fourteen years ago, as the British Columbia members well know; it had reached an acute stage when it was adequately dealt with by the order in council to which I have referred. But what do we find to-day? We find that recently there has been passed an order in council which to all intents and purposes does away with that earlier order in council. In other words, with some restrictions which can easily be evaded, the continuous journey has been done away with and people will be allowed to come by a non-continuous journey. I submit that, by the very simplest method of evasion, any number of Hindus- and, what is still more dangerous, their wives and minor children-can come into Canada. So it behoves us to study well this Hindu question in its full significance as regards this act.
We find, then, that New Zealand gave a good deal of attention to this phase of the subject, and we find that it was
4.	p.m. dealt with in this way: When the attention of the prime minister, Mr. Massey, was called to it, he said there was no danger of producing conflict or annoyance or friction; that on the occasion of the holding of the Imperial War conference in 1918 a conference at which India among other nations of the British Empire was fully represented, the following resolution was passed-I need quote only a few sentences which contain the gist of the thing:
It is agreed that it is an inherent function of the governments of the several communities of the British commonwealth, including India, that each should enjoy complete control of the composition of its own population by means of restriction on immigration from any of the other communities.
It goes on to elaborate that further, but that is the gist of it. That principle was not only assented to by representatives of India at that conference, but the resolution was actually introduced by the Maharajah of Bikaneer-if you know the gentleman. He was India's representative at that time-and I may say that he is one of the ablest men

Immigration Act
India has'ever produced. He has since been made a peer of the realm on account of the services he has rendered to India. Any resolution, therefore, introduced by him must certainly have had the full consent of the country he represented. That, in large measure, disposes of the argument that the proposed change would lead to friction with the inhabitants of India. Further, Mr. Downie Stewart, dealing with the subject, made this Remark:
It is pretty clear from the past policy adopted by the British government towards the Dominion authorities that if it becomes a question between the Dominion and some foreign country, the British government would prefer to quarrel with them rather than with us.
This is expressed as regards a foreign nation as well as regarding India.
The whole policy of the British government was well expressed as long ago as at the first colonial conference, in 1897, by Mr. Chamberlain. Nothing could be clearer than what he said: "We quite sympathize with the determination of the white inhabitants or these colonies, which are in comparatively close proximity to millions and hundreds of millions of Asiatics, that there shall not be an influx of people alien in civilization, alien in religion, alien in customs, whose influx, moreover, would most seriously interfere with the legitimate rights of the existing labour population. An immigration of that kind must, I quite understand, in the interest of the colonies, be prevented at all hazards, and we shall not offer any opposition to the proposals intended with that object."
Could the English language be much stronger in asserting that the Imperial government had no intention, has no intention and will have no intention of interfering with legislation of this character? Particularly do we realize that such is the case when we remember that this act has been in force two years and no objection has been registered against it, either by the Imperial authorities or by any foreign government who might think that they were affected under its provisions.
We come now to the second objection that was raised in the House of representatives in New Zealand, and that was that this object could be better obtained by means of diplomacy. Now, I shall not quote the remarks of the one member who took that line; to tell the truth, they are not worth quoting. He began by showing that he had not read the bill in question by taking objection to the non-presence in it of certain features which the premier subsequently showed him were there. He went on the familiar lines that we have all heard so often: he said that the -legislation was crude; that it was not polished, that it was not finished; that the better course would be to proceed by way of diplomacy. He also stated that he had interviewed the Chinese consul, who had declared-and he believed it absolutely-that China did not
32i
want its nationals to go into New Zealand. Have we not heard that before? The Chinese consul also said, according to this gentleman, that the Chinese were a proud nation and did not want to be aimed at in any indirect way- the same old familiar thing that we have heard in British Columbia for the last twenty years, from a different source. He advocated the policy of turning the cheek to the smiter; of giving to him who has stolen your coat your cloak also-a doctrine which was never popular even in the days when it was uttered.
I wish just to mention how the hon. Mr. Ngata dealt with the situation from that point of view. He said: .
As to the method, the hon. member for Clutha. suggested diplomacy as the remedy. Well, it is a very-nice suggestion, but in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, ^he time has come for the British dominions to put their cards on the table with regard to this matter, because they have been far too nice, far too diplomatic, im the past.
Mr. MALCOLM:: But diplomacy does put its cards on the table.


The Hon. Mr.   NGATA@: We have before us a very fine example now in the result of diplomacy as between Japan and America. Look at the position America has got into in regard to colonization of the Pacific slope by the Japanese. It may end in war at any time. I think it would be the height of diplomacy if the British dominions were to make it known through the Imperial government to the Republic of China that the view of the people of this country is that they do not desire any Chinese to come into it.
Why not make this sentiment known in a statute? That would surely express the view of the representative people of New Zealand and it would be the authoritative voice of the people of this country. Now, what did the hon. gentleman mean by diplomacy? Our representations would have to be made through the Imperial government-that is, through the Secretary of State for the Colonies. If we adopted that roundabout method we would probably get some kind of reply in four or five years. We would have to make representations at the Imperial Conferences, and so on. It is surely far better for the people of New Zealand to say straight out what they want by statute.
I think that deals practically with all that need be said in that regard.
We now come to the third objection that was raised by the labour members in the House, and I may say that the labour party in New Zealand is a particularly strong and virile one and if they saw any opportunity of finding objections to this or any other legislation they will be far from backward in making it known, so that any approval of any act they passed would be sure to have the approval of labour generally. They raised the point that perhaps the Minister of Immigration might use this legislation not for the purpose for which it is intended-to restrict immigration-but, by a false and malicious use of these powers, to flood the country with cheap coloured labour. They also raised the point, although they were not strong on it, that it was not fair to have British subjects
Immigration Act

handicapped. I would like to quote what the leader of the Labour party said in that regard. He said:
When it comes to the matter of considering the possible influx into a country like this of a people whose standards of living are necessarily lower than the standards of living of the people here, and when the people who are coming in do not always know the conditions to which they are coming, then it becomes necessary not only that the legislation of New Zealand shall be framed so as to protect the standards of life of the people of New Zealand, and especially the working people, but that it shall be framed also so as to protect the coloured immigrants who might be brought here. . . . Hence any vote that I give in this House- or that the Labour party gives-will be cast for the purpose of preserving our own standards and for the purpose of protecting t*he coloured workers who may be allowed or induced to come here from other countries.
With regard to the point raised that the law might be abused, that the minister might let in cheaper labour, I have just this to quote. The Prime Minister of New Zealand in replying alluded to it and said:
I understand the hon. member for Buller-
That was the leader of the Labour party-
-to say that if the government wished to introduce cheap coloured labour we could do it by this bill. One of the reasons which actuated the government in bringing down this bill was so that they might protect labour from competition with men whose standard of living is very much lower than that of the average British worker. We are not likely to do anything of the sort.
Mr. Holland:-
That was the Labour leader-
-I was wrong there.
-Rt. Hon. Mr. Massey: Then I do not need to go further with that point. When a man admits he was wrong there is nothing further to be said.
That disposes of that feature, but I must say that the bill was read without division a second time. After its second reading, when it came before the Committee of the Whole, the labour people moved an amendment which I shall briefly read because I wish to carry with me the sympathy of the labour element in this House-not only those who form the Labour party, but other members having sympathy with the labour movement. The labour people moved this amendment which I think, had it passed, would have amply protected them from any danger,, as they suggested, of abuse of the power granted to the minister. I do not think it is necessary but still it would be a very ample protection. Mr. Holland in the Committee of the Whole moved:
But in no case shall any such exemptions be made for the purpose-
That was the power of the minister to grant exemptions from this act-

-but in no case shall any such exemptions 'be made for the purpose of an influx of cheap coloured labour, or to bring outside labour from any country whatever into New Zealand during periods of industrial conflict.
Now, as I said, the bill was read without division which shows it had the sympathy of the whole House.
I do not think there is a great deal more to be said. The House will recall the debate which took place here last year on another phase, or one phase-for I am dealing with the whole question of immigration-of our immigration, and that was oriental immigration. We will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the House was unanimous that restrictions would have to be put on. Some hon. members thought that the words "total exclusion" should be used but the majority of the House favoured the use of the words "effective restriction" which they assured us meant practically the same. But unless I have interpreted very poorly indeed the temper of the House at that time, that resolution expressed the desire of the House that we should crystallize into legislation any and all gentlemen's agreements.
To-day the country to the south of us is moving in the same direction as New Zealand, and I have in my hand a bill introduced on February 9, into the House of Representatives at Washington in which I find a provision which excludes from the United States- excludes absolutely without any compromising gestures-and prohibits the landing of any immigrant not eligible for citizenship. Now that in the United States means all those of the yellow races. Unfortunately here it would not have that effect because men of the yellow races are eligible in Canada for citizenship, and a very great and grave error it is. In the United States it is not so, but I merely mention this to show that the government there is going ahead of us in this regard. I see, also, that they are issuing certificates of arrival, which means that every immigrant will practically have to be registered. It is the same thing that we advocated here last year, that all aliens should be registered. The certificate of arrival will form such a system of registration in the States. I only wish to point that out to show that the States are fully alive to the importance of this matter and are really ahead of us in this line of legislation.
We had a pledge from the government last year that something in the way of restriction would be introduced, and it was to be made a matter of possible diplomatic arrangement. The Speech from the Throne has come and gone and there has been no suggestion of anything of the kind. However we know this-

Immigration Act
that diplomatic negotiations take a long time and the fullest measure of consideration must be given to that fact. At the same time I do not know any method more calculated to prevent action being taken, or more calculated to stultify progress than to refer anything, no matter what it is, to diplomatic negotiations. It is practically consigning it to the limbo of the unknown. It may take five years, it may take ten years; we may get a decision in five years, we may get justice in ten. But in the meantime-let us pass this bill. The measure is general in character; it does not apply itself to oriental immigration specifically, but by general provisions which will affect each and every national of the world. I have not mentioned the word "Japanese"; that word does not appear in the bill. The whole tenor of the measure is one of general application, it is applicable to every nation under the sun, including our own white race in India.
I particularly want to emphasize that-to emphasize the fact that there is no possible chance of protest or friction or of diplomatic or any other kind of trouble. It was passed in New Zealand, approved of by the Imperial government, and no protest has been heard from any nation whatever regarding its conditions.
You remember during the war how we all read with interest Bairnsfather's sketches of soldiers at the front, and how one soldier said to his comrade "Bill, if you know a better hole, then lead me to it." If we know a better system of achieving this result by all means lead us to it; but if we do not, are we not logically driven to accepting this measure? If we have in the far distant future the hope of diplomatic negotiations which will achieve the same end by all means go on negotiating, but in the meantime-let us pass this bill.
I would like to make one more quotation from the proceedings of the New Zealand legislature. Two years after the act was passed a member asked the Minister of Internal Affairs how the act had worked and this is his reply:
My own opinion is that the act would be copied all over the British Empire because it was the most ingenious method of regulating immigration yet devised.
The return laid on the Table showed that the working of the act was very satisfactory. After eighteen months of operation that was the considered opinion of the minister in charge of its working. It evidently worked well there and will work well here. But by all means, let the diplomatic duel go on in the meantime. It may not do any good, but in the meantime, let us assist the government by the passage of this bill. I am reminded
here of a legend in connection with a Scotch nobleman. It is more than a legend because there is documentary evidence of it. It happened long ago. It was when the Scotch nobility were fighting in France, but not during the late war. I would like to remind my hon. friends from Quebec that long before there was any talk of friendship between the English and French, the Scotch and ;the French had the strongest rapprochement. Six or seven hundred years ago there was intense friendship between the Scotch and French and great intercourse. When the Scotch were fighting for freedom against the tyranny of the English kings, when the English kings * were holding lands in France, and styling themselves as kings of England and France, the Scotch and French were in great sympathy. The Scotch cadets used * to go to France for their culture and their education and marriages between the Scotch nobility and the French aristocracy were quite compion. Finally Scotland achieved her liberty from the English domination by the simple and characteristically Scotch method of going on fighting long after everybody had admitted that she was beaten. When they were relieved of that form of activity, the young Scotch cadets, who had been trained to do nothing but fight, passed in many instances to France and joined up with the French army. A large contingent of Scotch continued to fight under the banner of the French, and often could be seen the Scottish banner of the Lion waving on the same battlefield as the golden Lilies of France. I explained that because this Scotch nobleman was the leader of the Scotch brigade at one time, and they had been engaged in fighting. There was some sort of war always going on on the Continent, and on this occasion, the French and Scotch suffered a severe defeat, and it was afterwards discovered that it was due to the treachery of a Count Somebody, whose name I have forgotten. He was a count, a man of influence and standing in the country in which the war was going on, supposedly neutral, and the French and Scotch leaders held a conference that night to discuss the situation and decide what should be done. The Scotch leader was there, but it was noticed that he sat apart from the rest. He wrapped his military cloak about him and seemed to be keeping aloof. It was known that he had lost his brother in the battle of the day and it was thought he was nursing his wrath or his grief, and the other members left him alone. This diplomatic conference went on all night discussing what should be done with this count. Some said, "Burn him in his castle and all that it contains." Others
Immigration Act

said, "Court-martial him," and the diplomatic men said, "It is going to cause trouble and incite the ill-will of this' nation in whose domains we are. Perhaps it would be better diplomatically to ignore the situation and merely ignore the man as a traitor, and go on the best way we can." The diplomatic battle waged backwards and forwards. They could not come to any agreement. The night was far gone and it was necessaiy at last to consult the Scotch leader, whose words were as wise in counsel as his arm was strong in battle. They roused him up and asked his opinion, and he came to the head of the table and made his statement. I will have to translate it into English for the benefit of those benighted Sassenachs who never learned the beautiful Scotch language, the language as used in the Garden of Eden. His words were to this effect: "Gentlemen, I have heard your arguments pro and con. Before I came to this conference I was somewhat suspicious, a little dubious in fact, as to the result of the diplomatic conference, and just in case of a miscarriage of that diplomatic justice which you are seeking and to make the thing certain,"-and he unfolded his cloak-"I have brought the head of the Count with me." He disclosed the bloody head of the count whose fate they had been discussing all night. That is the difference between action and diplomacy. A man of action can always put it over the man of diplomacy. Let us proceed along these lines.
I would not be quite as exacting as my Scotch forebear. Let us continue with the diplomatic discussion, with all its legal quibbles and diplomatic sophistries, but-let us pass the bill. I can imagine the leader of the government would go with more confidence into a diplomatic conference if he knew he had this bill passed beforehand. I suppose it' does not make much difference whether you are sitting into a diplomatic game of poker with another nation, or playing with Mr. Jiggs in Dinty Moore's back parlour, if you have the knowledge that you have a fifth ace up your sleeve, it is calculated to give you a better feeling. Let us cut the Gordian knot of the diplomatic difficulty by passing this bill, but if need be, if it will please the nations of the earth, go on with these diplomatic negotiations, you will get a decision some day, but in the meantime-this bill will serve the purpose. We have nothing to lose by it, we have everything to gain, and the risk is practically nil. I would submit to the consideration of the House that nothing can be lost by the passage of this bill to-day.
[Mr. Neill.1


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I did not know the hon. gentleman was going to ask for the second reading of this- bill today. There are two things in connection with this bill that I would like to draw to the attention of the House. As far as the bill itself is concerned, I have no particular objection to it. The bill briefly provides that the Minister of Immigration shall absolutely control every person entering Canada and every person must have a permit, unless he be a British subject. I would not take exception to the bill, except that it cancels the present Immigration Act. There are a great many duties which the Immigration department performs for the government, and there are a great many provisions in the present Immigration Act that it is absolutely necessary should be embodied in the bill. Whether or not you should put it absolutely within the power of the minister to say, outside of British subjects who shall and who shall not enter Canada, I am not prepared to say to-day.
I propose to bring down next week a bill that will deal with Chinese immigration, and I propose to embody in that bill a provision for registration. There is no registration here. I propose to embody in the bill a provision for taking the finger prints of those who are leaving the country who desire to return again, because the hon. member for Comox-Al-berni (Mr. Neill) will, I think, agree with me that that is one of the greatest difficulties we have to contend with, in connection with the oriental people particularly. I am not just sure, after having read the bill carefully, whether registration is provided for or not. But those are some of the objections to be taken to the bill. I have no objection to my hon. friend having a discussion of this subject when the government bill is introduced, and when our amendment to the present Immigration Act is brought down and we can then get the consensus of opinion of the House as to what we should have to enable us to carry out the Immigration Act successfully.
I may say that there is rightly or wrongly, prevalent in the Scandinavian countries from which we desire to get immigration, and on the Continent, a feeling based on our present Immigration Act, that we do not want people to come to Canada, owing to the restrictions that we have placed on them at the present time. I do not think that feeling should exist. I think people whom we are desirous of having come to Canada, whom wo are going to spend money on to encourage them to come to Canada-and I speak of the desirable class-should have it in mind

Immigration Act
that the}' will be welcomed to Canada, rather than that provisions are to be set up to prevent their entering this country freely. On the other hand, we need provisions to guard against settlers coming to Canada whom we do not want to assimilate into our national life.
Let me deal, for a moment, with the very question the status of which my hon. friend is desirous of improving, that of Asiatic immigration. It puts the Minister of Immigration in rather a difficult position if, as my hon. friend hopes, and I assume he hopes, the minister must refuse absolutely to .allow an Asiatic to come into this country. I do not entirely agree with him,-indeed, I think, perhaps, that is a mild way of putting the matter-that we would not get into difficulties. Anyone who has been reading the press of recent date, will realize that we have some difficulty at the moment with India with respect to this matter, and it is a very trivial matter over which we are having the difficulty, namely, that of the right of Indians to be enfranchised throughout the whole of Canada. We are trying to handle that in a way to avoid friction, and my hon. friends will agree that there appears to be enough friction in the Near East without our adding to it at the moment. I am not any fonder of creating diplomatic difficulties than is my hon. friend; but we cannot at all times ignore them, and at the same time, I am trying, to keep in mind the peculiar situation that exists on the western coast of Canada. I hope the bill, at least as regards Chinese immigration, will meet the approval of say hon. friend, and we are putting some very drastic regulations in that bill. But to say that the whole responsibility devolves upon the minister; that he must assume responsibility absolutely, whether or not he shall allow an oriental or an Asiatic to enter Canada and, if he does, that he is to bear that responsibility without being backed with some legislation-that is a fairly heavy burden for a minister of any government to assume. At the same time, I think there are many admirable suggestions in my hon. friend's bill, and I am quite prepared to discuss it on its merits with my hon. friend; but I would ask, until such time as I bring down the amendments to the Immigration Act and the Chinese Immigration Act, that action on this particular bill be delayed.


Mr. NEILL:: Which section of tins bill
does the minister find cancels the Immigration
Act?-


Charles A. Stewart: The last
section.


Alan Webster Neill: That does not cancel the Immigration Act.


Charles A. Stewart: As I understand it, it does.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Mr. Speaker, I have listened, with a good deal of interest, to the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) and I notice he does not care to assume responsibility in reference to immigration to this country.


Charles A. Stewart: Might I be permitted to make just one more observation, that as regards this bill and the present act, with the single exception of the provision for countries with which we have treaties, the minister has power, under the existing act, to prohibit anybody from coming to Canada.


William Garland McQuarrie: It seems to me that that ground is rather an unusual one for a minister of the Crown to take, particularly as regards matters coming under his jurisdiction. Apparently, in New Zealand, a minister is quite prepared to assume that responsibility. The people in British Columbia feel that this government has not assumed enough responsibility in reference to this subject. Since this matter was discussed in this House on a resolution which I had the honour to submit, pressure for the exclusion of oriental immigration has been unabated on the part of the public of British Columbia, and we have heard expressions from sources which previously had been silent as to exclusion.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when my resolution was before the House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated that the government of British Columbia had not asked for exclusion, but instead, had expressed satisfaction with effective restriction. Since that discussion took place in this House, there has been a session of the provincial legislature of British Columbia, and I may tell hon. gentlemen that the result of that discussion was that a resolution was passed unanimously in the British Columbia legislature calling for, not effective restriction, but absolute exclusion. I have no doubt that resolution has been forwarded to the Prime Minister of this government. The people of British Columbia want exclusion; they have reason to ask for exclusion, because conditions are becoming worse and worse all the time, and they are demanding that this government assume some responsibility.
I have been asked by different organizations, more particularly by some of the
Immigration Act

women's institutes, to ascertain from the Minister of Immigration what his policy is going to be and what this effective restriction means, and I have forwarded to the Minister of Immigration some of those communications. A good deal of delay in his replying occurred that, I suppose, being due to the fact that he was necessarily absent from Ottawa a good deal, making his tours over Canada, for which tours I must commend him. When I received his reply, it was to the effect that the government was going to do something this session. He did not say what that would be; but he pointed out conditions as they prevailed at the present time, namely, conditions due to orders in council and legislation which had been passed by the previous government, and let the matter go at that.
What we are demanding is that the government assume some responsibility. In the city of Vancouver at the present time, there are some 2,000 oriental merchants; that is to say, oriental trades licenses have been issued and [DOT] are outstanding at the present time to the number of over 2,000, an increase of 500 per cent in the last four years. That is a pretty serious situation.
I said that some new sources had been heard from, and I would say that the church has come into the discussion. The Lord Bishop of New Westminster, in a public statement which he made not long ago and which is recorded in the press, came out strongly in favour of a policy of exclusion. I have here a copy of the Vancouver Province of February 9, 1923. I read the following headlines:
Would keep the province white, Christian and British Menace of Oriental immigration voiced by Bishop de Pencier
Tells Anglican Synod difficult to keep some parishes going
This article says in part:
Warning against admitting further oriental immigration and the declaration that in some sections of British Columbia control of districts has passed into the hands of Japanese and Chinese, were features of the address of Rt. Rev. A. U. de Pencier, bishop of the diocese, in addressing the thirty-eighth annual session of the synod of New Westminster, Thursday.
"The estimated number of Chinese in British Columbia is about 30,000, as against 16,867 Japanese," said his lordship. "There are comparatively few Chinese women in Canada, while on the other hand 5,654 of the Japanese are females. Seven hundred and forty Japanese children were born in Canada last year. The Japanese own 5.637 acres of land in British Columbia, and 3,614 acres of leased land is in their possession. While the fishing industry is practically controlled by the Japanese, the market gardening is almost wholly in the hands of the Chinese. Chinese merchants are admitted without a head tax into Canada, and in 1921, 1,145 came in under that classification.

Situation at Ashcroft
"The way in which this problem affects us, from a church point of view, is serious. The town of Ashcroft, for example, is now more than half Chinese. The principal hotel is owned by a Chinaman, who, when I was there during my visit last year to the diocese of Cariboo, employed a returned soldier and his wife to do his work. The English-speaking population is so weak in number that it is difficult to keep some of these parishes in existence. The old-settled district of Maple Ridge, for example, has 5,000 Orientals resident in the municipality, and 4,000 acres of the best arable land is cultivated by them.
"Let us earnestly consider this question without the raising of racial feeling and endeavour to accomplish two things:
1. To see that we do not admit into our homes or our homeland undesirable aliens.
"2. Secondly, which is perhaps a more difficult problem, to see to it that this feeling, which would properly cherish and conserve our own right and citi-enship, does not hinder us from putting forth all that energy and zeal, which we ought to exercise, so that we may Christianize those who are strangers within our gates, and who, returning, as they do, to their own land, will carry the Gospel message to their fellow countrymen.
"This is one of the greatest problems with which we have to deal in this province and diocese. Let me once again reiterate what I have frequently expressed in public, that in my opinion it is not essential that we should have our vacant spaces and our material resources settled and developed in ten or twenty, or even fifty years.
' We do desire growth, and we welcome an increased population of the right kind, but it is essential that when these vacant spaces are settled and our natural resources developed, that we should have a province that will be white; that will be British, and that will be Christian.
It seems to me that this government should take some responsibility in this matter. I do not think they go far enough by merely making a treaty with the Chinese, particularly if that treaty is not to go any further than was suggested by a representative of the Chinese government in Vancouver the other day. I have here the report of a statement made in Vancouver recently by Dr. Chilien Tsur, Chinese Consul General at Ottawa, who arrived in Vancouver-this is dated January 31st, 1923- from Peking where he had been conferring with his government.
"The immigration treaty," explained Dr. Tsur, "will provide that China shall not allow labourers to come to Canada. The dominion, on the other hand, will remove the head tax of $500, which Chinese people consider to be a disgrace. Canada wishes to limit the importation of labour from China and both countries seek the protection of their subjects in the territories of the other. These things will be provided for in the new treaty which will shortly be entered upon.
What will be the result of that treaty in regard to Chinese immigration? And what shall we get out of it? As I understand, it is provided at the present time by order in council that Chinese labourers shall not be admitted to this country. So that this will not do us any good. Chinese labourers, like

Immigration Act
others, are kept out by order in council, and all that we shall accomplish, so far as I can see, will be to lose the $500 head tax. The minister may think that we shall derive some benefit from the treaty, but I cannot see it that way. As regards the Japanese, I understand that the government is not going to bring down any legislation at all, so that we can expect the Japanese to keep on coming in the same old way. In default of the government bringing down some effective legislation I submit that it is quite proper for this House to support the bill which has been brought down by my old friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). With him, and with other members from British Columbia, I feel that exclusion is the real solution for this difficult problem. Nothing short of that will do. But if, carrying out the promise made to us by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) last year, the government will give us exclusion under some other name, then of course, as to this phase of the oriental question, we shall be perfectly satisfied. We are not bound by any name; all we want is to have the orientals kept out of this country. I am in favour of the bill and I am prepared to support it provided it is passed on some understanding, such as apparently existed in the case of New Zealand, that if it becomes law it will be so administered as effectually to keep out of the country all oriental immigration.
Now, personally, I do not see why we should not try to achieve our purpose in a straightforward manner, why. we should not have exclusion and call it by that name. But if that is objectionable, and if the arguments which the Prime Minister presented last year are sound, all right, we are prepared to accept a bill like this, provided the government can satisfy us that the effect of placing this bill on the statute books will be the total exclusion of oriental immigrants, just as in New Zealand, for that is the way similar legislation has worked out there. Their law means exclusion, but they call it something else. If we can attain the same end by the proper administration of the provisions of this bill when enacted into law, we will be satisfied.
I do not see why the Minister of Immigration should look upon this as a very difficult matter, because he has behind him a resolution of this House stating in so many words that oriental immigration and the rapid multiplication of orientals in this country constitute a menace to the future of Canada. That simply means that orientals are not desirable people to be admitted. Furthermore, he is recommended by that resolution to see that effective measures of restriction are enforced
to keep these people out. I have every respect for the minister, but I do not think he is alive to the seriousness of this question and to the necessity for taking immediate action, and, above all things, for his assuming responsibility.
We are asking in British Columbia that this government do things. I have letters in my file here from many prominent citizens of British Columbia, men of standing in the community, who say that if effective measures are not put into force to keep these orientals out, in other words, if we do not get the help of the law, then the people are going to take matters into their own hands. Well, we had trouble of that kind some years ago. The Prime Minister knows what happened in the city of Vancouver, because he had to go out there afterwards and settle claims for damages. He is very well acquainted with all the circumstances, which were shortly these:	That
the people then decided to take matters into their own hands in order to bring the government to a proper realization of the gravity of the situation.


William Irvine: May I ask the hon. member a question? Do I understand that there are threats of Bolshevism from the Tory ranks, Mr. Speaker?


William Garland McQuarrie: I did not say anything about Bolshevism nor about the Tory ranks. This is not a political question in British Columbia. Shortly before I left for Ottawa I had the privilege' of attending a meeting called by the Retail Merchants' Association of New Westminster, which was addressed by no less a person than the Attorney General of British Columbia. He does not pretend to be a Tory, and in fact I think he is not supposed to be one. The Hon. Mr. Manson is held out in the Liberal press of the province as the champion of oriental exclusion. He did not mince matters at all in his address. He said: Something has to be done. We have to make those people down in Ottawa realize where they are at. The Liberal party in British Columbia is urging the Liberal party here in Ottawa to do something, to take immediate action. I am not saying anything about Grits or Tories nor about Bolshevism. I am simply quoting the purport of letters I have in my file from leading citizens of British Columbia.
The same spirit which manifested itself in 1907 is commencing to reappear now, and it is essential for the government to assume responsibility, and assume it quickly. We cannot be responsible for the consequences if they continue their policy of masterful inac-

Immigration Act
tivity. I do not intend to engage in an extensive argument on this question, but I want to go on record as being in favour of the immediate passage of this bill, provided we have an undertaking from the government for the effective administration of its provisions so as to absolutely exclude any further oriental immigration.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, we have in this question a very clear-cut issue: Are we to have total exclusion or partial exclusion? The people of British Columbia, irrespective of party affiliations, are insisting upon total exclusion. Last session when the hon. member for New Westminister (Mr. McQuarrie) introduced a resolution on this question the government in their amendment made a most important change in its wording, substituting for "total exclusion" the phrase "effective restriction." The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) informed the House at that time that this was the diplomatic way of saying total exclusion. But the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Stork) did not regard the change in that light and, strong Liberal supporter as he is, he doubted the assurances of the leader of the government and voted against the amendment. Hon. members will therefore understand why those of us on this side of the House should be perhaps a little skeptical about further assurances on the part of the government and should be doubtful if the government are now going to be any more solicitous to accomplish the purpose sought to be attained last session. Not only did the hon. member for Skeena vote against the government on that occasion, but we find the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Munro) was absent altogether, and consequently we were left in ignorance as to his stand on the question. I had expected to see the hon. member in his seat this afternoon, to seize the opportunity to explain his position last year, or state his determination to stand by the unanimous appeal of the people of British Columbia to have total exclusion of Asiatic immigration.
It is not my intention to prolong the discussion on this question. The merits of the matter were fully gone into last year; the injury to the country, economically and socially, was established beyond question, not only by hon. members of the House but by the statements of leading citizens of British Columbia. We know that there is no possibility of assimilating these people into our population; their standards of living are vastly lower than ours. We know that

they have entered into and have become masters of many of the most important industries of the country. Retail and wholesale businesses in the large centres are being gradually controlled by orientals, simply because of the fact that they are able to exist upon a very small margin betweeh what it costs to carry on their business and what they expend. White persons who wish to engage in the same business cannot, upon the standard of living, of education and so on that they naturally desire to maintain, compete with the orientals. The question is purely an economic one; it is not a question in which the pride or the dignity of a great nation is involved. It is not a question in connection with which Japan or China may say that an offence has been committed against their national sense of dignity-it is, I say, purely and solely an economic question. In dealing with our oriental diplomats the government will find it necessary to take a firm, perhaps a somewhat stubborn, hold on the question. But I am assured, in discussing the matter with men who are prominent in diplomatic circles, that if a strong and determined stand is taken by the government and they base their action on the economic aspect of the question, there will be no difficulty in arranging matters so that we shall in fact bring about total exclusion.
People in other portions of the Dominion may look on this matter from a different point of view, but I believe their attitude would be more in the nature of apathy or indifference, than an attitude of opposition to the claims of the people of British Columbia. You have heard the views expressed of practically every public organization of importance in the far western country. You have heard the views of men in public life, members of both the provincial and the Dominion legislatures. You are familiar with the views expressed in the British Columbia legislature. You have heard the representations of boards of trade, of retail merchants' associations, of practically every person in British Columbia who is actively connected with its economic or its social life. You have heard the appeal from all these sources, an appeal addressed to the only authority which has the power to regulate and control the matter in this country, for the taking of aggressive and decisive and definite steps to bring about total exclusion.
We are aware of the fact that the development of the West, in our grain export, in our timber business, perhaps in connection with our mines, and so on, will depend in some degree on the development and extension of our trade with China and Japan.

Immigration Act
But I again assure the House that a line of demarcation can be drawn between, on the one hand, the broad aspects of commerce, the export business, our trade with the Orient, and, on the other hand, the question of allowing Mongolians, a lower class of labour; into British Columbia. I submit that the government may foster the best interests of the Dominion, may encourage trade and add to the prosperity of this country, and do so consistently with the policy of keeping out a class of people who are undermining the work of the people in certain sections of our country, especially in British Columbia, who are unable to compete with those who have come to the province with the influx of immigration as I have seen it in the last two years. I do hope, therefore-and I say this in no partisan spirit -that the government will look at this matter in a broad way and that the bill which they propose to bring down will embody those features which are necessary to bring about not effective restriction, but total exclusion; because just as sure as you provide one regulation calculated to bring about effective restriction, the wily oriental will devise two other methods of evading it, and we shall have them coming in just as fast as the}' ever did.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member representing Vancouver (Mr. Ladner) has made special reference to the economic side of this question. Now, I do not
5 p.m. rise to advocate the unrestricted admission of orientals to this country. But I do wish to point out to hon. members that in considering this question we should keep in mind the last observations of my hon. friend, in which he made reference to the trade aspect of it. No later than last week in this House we had before us demands, particularly from our friends in British Columbia, for increased facilities for storage of grain and for development in the harbour at Vancouver. The immense development and the possibilities of greater development of trade between Canada, China and Japan, were emphasized. Recently it was brought to my attention that the government of India has had under consideration a revision of the trade policy of that country. At the last session of their parliament a committee was appointed to consider the matter of preferential trade within the Empire, and there were presented to parliament tw.o reports, a majority report and a minority report. I wish to read just an extract from the minority report so that hon. members may draw their own conclusions as to how the solution of this
problem affects Canada and how the government should be guided in considering the matter-because whether we wish it or not, these problems are interlocked with the trade possibilities of the country. Both reports agreed upon a policy of preferential trade with the Mother Country, and it was pointed out that that preferential trade might be extended to the other British dominions. But the minority report put in this saving clause:
That the condition precedent to any agreement with the British dominions in trade matters on the basis of reciprocity should be the recognition of the right of the Indian people to a status of complete equality and the repeal of all anti-Asiatic laws so far as they apply to the people of India.
Now, Sir, if there is one province in Canada more than another that has much to gain in trade matters by friendly relations with Asia it is British Columbia and the provinces adjacent thereto.


Mr. CLARK:: May I ask a question? Does the minister suggest that exclusion would necessarily involve us in hostile relations with the Orient?


James Alexander Robb: Well, I said at first that I was not discussing the question of exclusion or restriction. I was pointing out to the House the importance of giving very careful consideration to these questions. Let it not be forgotten that acts passed by the parliament of Canada, or debates that take place here, will be brought to the attention of the parliaments in the countries where we desire to do business. It is frequently pointed out to the government of Canada-it was pointed out to the preceding administration and it has been pointed out to the present government-that we should devote more attention to developing trade in Asia. There we find customers that are worth considering, customers to the number of 700 millions. Taking that trade in the aggregate it is considerable; our trade with India, with China and Japan is growing and growing steadily.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister not
realize the fact that the oriental is a good business man and that he will buy our goods only if he gets them at the right price, not otherwise. It is not a matter of sentiment with him at all but a matter of business.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, the oriental is a good
business man. The oriental desires to do business with Canada but he desires, as do other customers, to do business on a fair basis and to be treated fairly. All that he asks is to be treated fairly, and I think I can convince the hon. gentleman that his custom is worth considering.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would ask the minister whether or not he has seen a newspaper despatch reporting the statement by the Right Hon. S. Sastri, upon his return to Bombay, India, that he found that his ideas in regard to the enfranchisement of East Indians before he made his tour of Canada had not been correct. He states that there was no prejudice against East Indians at all, that it was an economic matter; and more than that, there was a desire on the part of the people of Canada not to discriminate against the Japanese and Chinese in favour of the East Indians.


James Alexander Robb: I had the pleasure, in Bombay, of lunching with a member of parliament who is a friend of Mr. Sastri, and I gathered from him that Mr. Sastri, on his part, was going to do everything possible to bring about friendly relations between India and Canada, and he expected us to do a little here to help him along.
Mr. JOHN A. MacKELVIE (Yale):	I
would rather imagine the later remarks of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) have the effect of interjecting into this discussion a subject which is not exactly germane to the resolution now before the House. The latter question can, and no doubt will, be considered at another time. I may say, however, that having lived for over thirty years in British Columbia, and having seen this problem, this menace, of oriental intrusion

Immigration Act
grow from small beginnings until it has now assumed proportions that cause it to overshadow practically every other problem we have to face in that province, I have always, in the .innumerable discussions in which I have taken part during that time regarding this subject, endeavoured to approach it with a mind charged with more than local issues, endeavoured to view it with a full sense of the responsibility entailed by those who advocate complete exclusion having regard to international and imperial associations. That aspect, dealing with the constitutional phase of the question, was very ably and fully discussed last year in this House by the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). His arguments left nothing to be said on the subject, and I do not propose to rehash them now.
In reply to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, if he apprehends that any difficulty regarding trade relations may arise from the enforcement of resolutions such as this, I wish to warn him that a much more serious difficulty, a much more inflamed state of feeling in the Orient, may very reasonably be expected to arise if this almost intolerable condition under which we are now suffering in British Columbia is allowed to continue, and that serious results are inevitably bound to follow. There will be disturbances which will have the effect of creating far more inflamed feeling in the Orient towards this country than anything that could possibly result on account of restrictive measures which we may adopt.
I gave my opinion to the House regarding this matter last year, and I suppose that those of us from my province will be compelled again to debate this question when the policy of the minister is brought up. I may say I will support this motion, not because I believe it is absolutely the best way of approaching the subject, but because I am always in favour of moving in any direction which will give us relief in British Columbia -and indeed, in other parts of Canada, for the menace is rapidly spreading-from this condition of affairs which strikes so vitally at the very fundamentals of our prosperity in that section of the country.
As far as the constitutional phase of the question is concerned, I am prepared to reiterate what I said last year. If there be treaties standing in the way, denounce them. If there be anything that can be done by this parliament to absolutely put up the bars against oriental immigration of all kinds, let it be done immediately. Before I came to Ottawa I attended a meeting of the provincial association of the British Columbia farmers. A multiplicity of subjects was discussed and various resolutions advanced. Some of them were the subject of controversy, and debated at great length, but one question arose upon which they were united, upon which they did not even take the trouble of forcing the question to a debate of any kind; that was that the United Farmers of British Columbia, along with all other classes in that country, are absolutely determined to continue their fight as long as they can, until we get absolute and complete restriction of oriental immigration into that province.
I notice the minister said something about a proposal which he would advance to this House, looking to more effective restriction of Chinese immigration. So far, so good. We refrain from saying anything upon what is, perhaps, a more serious phase of the question; that is immigration from Japan. But dealing with each and every phase of it, I am convinced that there is only one solution. I am convinced that nothing would satisfy British Columbia, and I am convinced that the time is very rapidly approaching when nothing will satisfy Alberta and other sections of this country than that the government shall stand four-square to the world and say that we exercise the rights which are undoubtedly ours and refuse to admit to Canada any more of this class of people.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou):: The subject of immigration is one of the most important that could engage the attention of parliament. The task of the present administration, in regard to the future of this country, with its financial situation and other conditions, calls for the increasing of its population at as early a date as possible and by the wisest method by which it can be brought about. I am sure the country is looking with interest to see what steps parliament will take in regard to this problem. My hon. friend (Mr. Neill) who introduced this measure has suggested what purports to be a complete policy with reference to the whole subject of immigration and in the consideration of this problem we have gone away from what might be called the national view upon this question to discuss the purely local situation as it appeals to the province of British Columbia. I apprehend, looking at the legislation now proposed, if I followed my hon. friend correctly, that he has taken a measure which was introduced into the parliament of New Zealand and has attempted to adapt it to Canada and Canadian conditions. I am sure that while this discussion so far relating to this narrow part of the
Immigration Act

subject is very interesting, it cannot be expected, and I am sure my hon. friend who introduced this measure will hardly expect, that this parliament will proceed to adopt this bill, as he has drawn it, as the full measure of what we propose to do in regard to this question at this time. We would rather look to the government and ministry to submit to parliament a broad scheme dealing with all these questions and showing the country how the government is prepared to solve this most important problem. I quite agree with the minister as to the inaptness of this measure in a very great many respects. Drawn as it has been entirely from the viewpoint of New Zealand, we are faced with this proposition. In the second clause of the bill I find:
No person other than a person of British birth and character shall (except as by this act is specially provided) enter into Canada unless he is in possession of a permit to enter in the form and to the effect provided by regulation under this act.
In other words, we are enacting a prohibition against the man in northern Europe, no matter what country he might come from, or no matter what country we might look to for desirable settlers, and we are telling him that he is in the excluded class, and that by no possibility can anybody be allowed to enter the country, except he be a British subject under the terms of the act.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. gentleman has read section 2. Will he quote the general provision of section 3?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman as to the provisions of section 3, but section 3 does not remove the injurious effect of what is contained in section 2. The complaint I make in regard to'section 2 is that this parliament would, if this -were adopted, give notice to every man in northern Europe, outside of the British Isles, that he was a prohibited person and could not come into this country unless he had a permit from the minister, and I think the minister was quite right in indicating to the House that the responsibility which was going to be placed upon him by virtue of that measure was one which no minister would care to assume.
It is quite evident, looking at subsection 2, of section 2, that our New Zealand friends, in dealing with this question, were dealing solely with the oriental problem, but there the immigration question is largely one which is entirely controlled by that problem. With the exception of those of British origin, the men from northern Europe, to which countries we 
may look to people our land on account of the similarity of climatic conditions, do not go to New Zealand when they want to emigrate. They have to deal largely with people of British origin, who come from the British Isles and the Asiatics, and this legislation shows on the face of it that that is what they are dealing with, and it is, therefore, very limited legislation, and not such a measure as we should enact and place upon the statute books of this country.
I make that remark because I think this debate should be adjourned and that the attention of parliament should not be focussed upon this question in a deliberate way until the minister has had an opportunity of bringing down the submissions which he proposes to lay before us in regard to this all-important question.
May I turn aside for the moment to say a word as to Asiatics. I had the opportunity of hearing Dr. Sastri, when he was on a visit to Canada last summer. We have been accustomed to hearing eloquent things about the great Empire to which we belong, and about the great achievements in India, and about the fact that a certificate of British citizenship was the same the world over. That is the boast of the British people. When Dr. Sastri came to Canada he said:
There are one thousand of my fellow countrymen in this country, and we do not ask that you should permit any more to come. We arc perfectly content with the provisions which now exist to prevent any more from coming into this country.
But they are British subjects and they claim the right to the franchise. When the Great War tvas on, their brethren in India volunteered to engage in the conflict just the same as the sons of Canada did. They were not conscripted; they were not dragooned into the conflict. They have the fullest right to claim consideration as British subjects, according to Dr. Sastri's appeal, as men who come from any other part of the world. That argument, I say, appeals to me, and it does not run counter to the theory of the restriction of Asiatic immigration. If there are in this country one thousand people who are British subjects, and if, for reasons, the class from which they come say: "We do not want to come in any greater numbers," any difficulty that might arise with reference to that branch of immigration is entirely removed. But the appeal which Dr. Sastri made in Canada last year is one which ought to come with great effect to any man who has any sense of reason and fair play and who is proud of the fact that he is a British subject. I make that statement entirely apart from the question of what

Immigration Act
our attitude should be as regards the class known as Asiatics, either Chinese or Japanese.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Does the hon. member
think it is in the best interests of any country that the population of that country should consist of white races and Asiatics?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend had waited, I was proceeding to say that I was not at the moment discussing the question of the exclusion of Chinese and Japanese. That is an entirely different subject, one upon which I think our friends from British Columbia, having regard to conditions existing in that province, are very largely justified in the views which they have put forward. But I apprehend this, that when this parliament wants to lay down a policy which has to deal with the whole question of immigration that must be done by a measure which is complete in its nature and which will grapple with the subject in a systematic and deliberate way. With all due deference to my hon. friend who has introduced this measure, I submit that this bill is not one which this House should adopt, nor which it should proceed to dispose of, perhaps, I should say, before we have had the wider measure which will deal with the whole subject.
My stand in reference to the position of a man who is a British subject and who comes from India, is one which, I wish the House distinctly to understand, is prompted by a realization of the fact that his position is entirely different from that of a man who is either a Chinaman or a Japanese. I would, therefore, submit to the House that this measure should stand over until the policy of the government in regard to the whole question has been brought down.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has taken a stand which, perhaps, is one which will meet with more or less approval on the part of quite a number of hon. members of this House. He objects to this bill, in the first place, because it is a very general bill and, second, because the chief argument advanced up to the moment in support of the bill, has been based upon the peculiar and extraordinary conditions in one province of Canada. In justification for the stand taken by the introducer of the bill and those who have supported it, I have this to say for the government-and I sajr it with all courtesy and kindness, and yet with firmness-that in previous years, but particularly last year, we came before this House with a very serious grievance. We presented our views in a wholly non-political
manner. We asked for bread and we received a stone. We asked for the exclusion of Asiatics from this country. We received an assurance that we would have effective restriction. So far there has been no evidence of any definite policy whatsoever to give effect to that promise, although, as my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuar- * rie) has stated, in the same resolution which was accepted by the government, and, indeed, amended by them and accepted in its amended form, there was a clear statement, an admission by this parliament that there was a definite menace in this type of immigration. I, therefore, do not think that we are called upon to apologize to the House for advancing as the chief arguments in support of the bill the problem facing the Pacific coast province of Canada, namely, the Asiatic immigration problem.
My hon. friend who introduced this bill and, I think, others who come from that province, do not come to this House and say that this is an ideal measure from our standpoint. But we are endeavouring to meet the uninformed view-and I use that word without any desire to give offence

of many members from the other provinces who, by their numerical strength in this House, reduce us to a position of impotency and absolute inability to secure our rights or what we contend to be our rights. Unless we can persuade hon. gentlemen that this is a problem that must be faced, we are subjecting our province to a possible inundation of immigrants from the Asiatic continent that will make British Columbia simply an adjunct of those Asiatic countries.
Let me bring to the attention of the House and particularly of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a statement made by a Japanese statesman the other day, to illustrate the grave nature of this problem. Before I read the statement, it will be recalled that at the Washington conference, the Imperial Japanese government agreed in the conference to certain provisions to which I Bhall not refer; but it was also reported at least in the press', that the Japanese allowed the question of immigration to stand aside. It was felt, during the early stages of the conference, that that would interfere with a settlement, and we were all surprised, and, I think, pleased' that the Japanese government allowed that question to stand aside and joined with Great Britain, France and the United States in a disarmament agreement. This is a clipping from one of the leading American journals:

Immigration Act
Viscount Uchida has told the Tokyo Diet that Massano Hanihara, now en route to Washington as Japan's ambassador, is soon to take up the immigration negotiations, interrupted when the arms conference met at the American capital some fourteen months ago. From the point of view of the Mikado's government, this is not only an advisable step, but even an imperative one, for it-7
. The Imperial Japanese government-[DOT]
-cannot be satisfied with the present understanding- that Root-Takahira "gentlemen's agreement" under which Tokyo issues no passports to Japanese labourers planning to cross to "the States."
There is a good deal more, but that is all I desire to read to illustrate my point. In other words, the Japanese government, while it waived that problem under conditions obtaining at the Washington conference, now comes forward and is demanding the abrogation, or withdrawal, or cancellation, or whatever term you choose to use, of the "gentlemen's agreement." The Prime Minister will recall all the incidents surrounding the "gentlemen's agreement" between Canada and Japan. It has served as a partial bulwark, shall I say, for Canada against an inundation of Japanese, but only a partial bulwark-I was going to use the term "meagre," and I will give the figures in a moment to justify that view. But if the government of the Mikado is going to demand from the United States government at Washington the abrogation of the famous Root treaty itself, it is quite within the realm of possibility that they will next demand the cancellation of their agreement with Canada. We are not satisfied with the terms of that agreement. We in British Columbia are faced with a very serious condition in regard to that agreement. We have not particularly attacked it, but we have been very restive under it and I tell my hon. friends opposite that the possibility of the loss of e^en that meagre safeguard will be viewed with extreme alarm in the province of British Columbia.
Let me justify my remarks by giving a few statistics, and I shall try to be as brief as possible. I might observe that I am not basing my whole argument on the Japanese situation;
I am taking it as distinct from the others, to which I shall refer in a moment. There are 17,690 Japanese in Canada, of whom, in the one province of British Columbia alone, there are 16,869. In other words, there are fewer than a thousand in all the other provinces combined. Surely in view of that fact the government, and hon. members of this House will appreciate the reason for our alarm. But that is not the main significance of these statistics. I would ask hon. members to follow the figures I am about to give. In 1910 there were 5,005 births in British Columbia, of which 
20 were Japanese. That gives a ratio of one Japanese to 249 whites. In 1915, there were 10,516 births in British Columbia, of which 303 were Japanese, or one to 34. In 1920, the total births in the province were 11,523, of which 657 were Japanese ,or a ratio of one to 17. In 1921, the ratio was further reduced, standing now at one Japanese to every 13 whites. From 1910 to 1921, a period of only 11 years, the ratio had changed from one to 249 to one to 13.
Is not that appalling? Is it not a situation that is fraught with very serious possibilities and consequences unless we face the matter frankly? This House must get clear on this point. Whether or not the government face this question now, the day will come sooner or later, and I believe it is not far distant, when it will have to be faced. There is no escape from it. In addition to the Japanese there are over 30,000 Chinese in British Columbia. And knowing a great deal about the Chinese methods of living and the difficulty of making a census, I am of the opinion that you could easily add 5,000 or
10,000	more to that number. At any rate, there are at least 30,000 Chinese in the province; while there are about 1,000 Hindus. That gives you a total of some 50,000 orientals out of a population of about half a million. And, mark you, that in the face of the most bitter opposition on the part of the people of that province during the last twenty-five years.	[DOT]
In all that time there has not been a moment when the people of British Columbia have not stood up to a man against this immigration. A few years ago in this House I brought to the attention of the government the fact that we had passed 144 resolutions and bills which had been disallowed by the federal government in preceding years, and which showed that the people and the governmental authorities of British Columbia were very serious about the matter. Now I come to the House and inform hon. members that in 11 years the Japanese ratio of increase has changed from one to 249 to one to 13.
Let me deal with another phase of the question. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) sounded a note this afternoon which has always been resorted to by those who are opposed to our view on this subject. And when I say opposed, I believe the opposition is based on ignorance of the facts, because I find that in Ontario, where a few years ago one could scarcely get a hearing in regard to the anti-Asiatic views of British Columbia, to-day we have a very strong stand against the oriental invasion which they find gradually working into their cities. I read in a Toronto newspaper the

Immigration Act
other day, the Mail and Empire, an editorial in which it was stated that this country must face this question sooner or later. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, for whom I have the highest regard, and who undoubtedly had the very best intentions, advanced to this House his reason why we should hush up this question and say nothing about it. That reason was one of trade. Let me tell this House that if some effective steps are not taken in ihe near future it will not be a question of considering the effect on trade; it will be a question whether British Columbia is going to be merely a colony of the Orient or a province of this Dominion. That is what y<?u will have to consider, for we shall not have very much say in the province.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) -and I have his words-referred to the enfranchisement of Hindus, which really touches the whole question, to a greater or lesser extent, of the enfranchisement of all naturalized citizens of oriental origin, as a trivial question. It is not a trivial question. Enfranchise 50,000 orientals to-morrow and what chance in the world could we have with a solid phalanx of opinion of that kind, moulded, moved and directed by one line of thought and interest?


William Garland McQuarrie: You would have
another party in the House.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but just imagine the effect of most of these people living in our cities or adjacent to them. In presenting this matter to the House, and particularly to the government, I am not expressing any partisan view. I am stating the view of the members from British Columbia and of every citizen of that province. I ask that the government face this question now, and face it frankly. We must state to the world, with frankness and firmness, that this country is going to stand for the exclusion of oriental immigration to Canada. We are not asking for the exclusion of business men or bona fide students who are registered in any of our universities, nor are we asking that this shall apply to travellers or tourists. We welcome any increase of that kind. But we do say that we must rigidly enforce an exclusion law against orientals. If I understand the oriental mind, and I think I know something about it-my hon. friend from one of the Montreal constituencies (Mr. Jacobs) who is quite a student of immigration, 'laughs-I happen to have taken two trips through Japan, I have also travelled through China and the Malay States, and I have studied the question from the knowledge gained by that contact with the oriental as well as during thirty years
residence in British Columbia and the Pacific coast states. I call the House to witness this fact that in California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia-wherever this problem confronts the people, can you show me any one from the governor downwards who holds divergent views as to the absolute necessity of total exclusion of this class of immigration? Not one. Why, in this very despatch by this distinguished Japanese statesman he refers to the fact that all three of these Pacific coast states as well as others are solidly against the immigration of Japanese. Now, I say to the government, I say to parliament-because after all I realize that the government can only be moved by the opinion of parliament- I say to parliament that the time has arrived when we must make a clear-cut statement.
I was proceeding to say when the laugh of my hon. friend (Mr. Jacobs) interrupted me, that if I understand the oriental mind-and I think I do-I am right in reaching this conclusion: If you talk in plain, simple language the oriental will understand and appreciate your meaning infinitely better than if you indulge in the intricacies and refinements of obscure diplomatic terms. If there is anything he is a master of it is the subtleties of diplomacy-and if there is anything that this government is deficient in it is that very quality.


Mr. JACOBS:: Give us some instances wherein they are deficient.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think we are all of us perhaps less adept at that than the oriental. However, I will let that pass. But you will get very much farther ahead in dealing with this problem with Japanese, Chinese or Hindus, if you tell them frankly but firmly that the determined policy of Canada is to exclude this type of immigrant. Once that stand is taken without reserve you will have no difficulty in my estimation in dealing with the problem from their standpoint.
My hon. friend the minister (Mr. Stewart) says he is going to bring do\3ti a bill dealing with the Chinese situation. 1 assure him that I do not wish to embarrass him, but such action will not solve this problem, and I very much fear that anything he may bring down of a qualifying character will only increase the discontent and resentment of all classes of public opinion in the West on this question.
Now let me say a word or two in regard to the matter brought forward by my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald). He referred to the enfranchisement of the Hindus. I admit quite frankly that not only in regard to the Hindu, but in regard to any naturalized subject the franchise seems to come as a

Immigration Act

proper, just and natural sequence. But here is what we are faced with in British Columbia. The oriental is numerically so strong as an individual group or class, and the possibilities of a further influx are so grave, that we have but one safeguard against it: that is to deny them the franchise so that they have no voice in framing the public policy of that province. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) is not in his seat, but if he were I can imagine an immediate interjection from him that that is a violation of British fair play.


Samuel William Jacobs: May I say that it'is also a violation of the understanding reached at the last Imperial Conference which the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) attended?


Henry Herbert Stevens: In so far as the Hindus are concerned-and I think my hon. friend has somewhat overstated the case-I admit that it appears to be a violation of those British principles of which we are all so justly proud. But I want to tell this House again that if we were to enfranchise naturalized orientals, then in all probability the next step would be the opening of the doors for increased immigration from their native countries. And the pressure is there. Japan is complaining to-day that, including Korea and Formosa, she has not room for her 77,000,000 people. But the point is not, whether we are going to supply a country for the settlement of Japan's surplus population. That is not the question. The question is, to what degree we are justified in opening our doors to any given class of immigrant who is incapable of assimilation. That is the question we must decide. So far as Japan is concerned, there are many areas on the continent of Asia that are not settled yet, and if time permitted I could soon illustrate my statement. But we are not called upon to solve Japan's problem in that regard, and British Columbia absolutely refuses to be the dumping ground for the surplus population of the Orient. And I think we have a right to refuse. We have a right to resent any such suggestion. Moreover, we have a right to plead in this parliament with the eight other provinces of Canada for support in this matter. We base that appeal on the knowledge that wherever other communities have been brought into contact with this problem, even in a small measure compared with our experience, they express the same opinion. If my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) would in the next two weeks have a clerk seek that information in Kingston, London, HamilfMr. Steven*.]
ton, Toronto, Montreal-in fact in almost any of our eastern cities, he would find all of them urgent with strong arguments, just as strong as any I am putting forward to-day, against further oriental immigration into Canada.
I say to the government as the active and potent power in this House that it is on their responsibility that some course of action must be taken. The reason I am speaking perhaps so strongly to-day is that I apprehend this measure will stand over because my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has so requested to allow him to introduce a bill, and therefore I hope the government may be impressed with the seriousness of this problem, and that when that bill is introduced it will be with a full knowledge of all the facts in the case as far as we have been able to give them, not only to-day but on the very complete debate a year ago.


Mr STEWART (Argenteuil):: If my hon. friend will permit me a question? Wherein does this bill to improve the Immigration Act except in the single clause that provides for the admission of nationals with whom we have treaties? I want the hon. gentleman to understand that I am in entire sympathy with his views, but I have not yet seen that point dealt with and as it is very nearly six o'clock I should like to have his views before we adjourn.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I can deal with that in the few minutes at my disposal. I am very glad the minister raised the point because I had made a note of it but overlooked it. It is quite true, as he says, that under the general act power has been conferred upon the minister to do virtually all that is proposed in this act by order in council. But no minister has up to the present time felt that it was incumbent upon him by regulation to take such very drastic steps regarding the restriction or exclusion of any class of immigration as are called for by this bill. But clothed with specific statutory power, the minister has no choice; he must do it.


Samuel William Jacobs: Not necessarily.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Virtually he must.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not discovered in the bill any tiling that forces me to exclude any one.,


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now, let us stop quibbling about this matter. Let us talk very plainly.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not quibbling. I am simply arguing-


Immigration Act


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps I have been quibbling. I will be very blunt with' my hon. friend: the bill is not designed for that purpose. The bill is designed to meet the squeamishness of my hon. friend and others in this House who do not wish to say, "We will stand for exclusion." That is what the bill is designed to do-it is an indirect method of reaching exclusion.


Charles A. Stewart: I hardly think I can accept that explanation. There is no squeamishness about the minister in connection with this.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, let me limit it, then. There is squeamishness-well, the term is not a very dignified one-there is hesitancy- now, am I using too strong a term?-on the part of this House, and has been for years, to take this stand in regard to exclusion. We have pleaded for it for years; now we come forward and say to you in this bill: we are following a precedent established by another dominion in the form of a measure which has been in force for over two years. There is a precedent, and on it we ask you to act, to attain the end that we think you should attain by definite and frank exclusion. I say to the government very candidly, that I would rather see this bill not passed and a definite exclusion measure put through.


Charles A. Stewart: Exactly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the government think that this bill is too weak, I am sure that the mover and others will join with him in going to the extent of frankly excluding. But in order to meet the constantly reiterated argument that someone is going to be injured here or -some offence given there, we have followed the pattern of New Zealand, and offer this bill. As I said a moment ago, last year we asked for a certain thing and we got a promise of effective restriction, but there has been none. My hon. friend, I believe, has been looking for a method of effective restriction, and he has .not been able to find it; it is a difficult thing to do. But we urge the government frankly to come forward; we urge parliament frankly to come forward and stand for the principle of exclusion.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask my hon. friend how this bill bolsters or assists the minister in any particular with respect to restriction? I cannot discover it, if it is there.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have tried to explain to the minister that his present powers are
m
derived from the general Immigration Act. If he exercises the powers set forth here, it must be by regulation. It was never conceived, never intended in the original act that the minister should be empowered wholly to exclude any given class of people. This bill, if it passes, will become a statute, and we know the reason for its present form; it is to enable the minister to exclude certain races from this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is, if he wants to do


Henry Herbert Stevens: Exactly; I quite agree with my hon. friend.


Samuel William Jacobs: I point out to my hon. friend the provisions of section 3:
The Governor in Council may order that the provisions of this act shall not apply to nations or peoples specified in such order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I happen to know the views of my hon. friend the minister, and I think I know the -views of the right hon. Prime Minister, to this extent: that if this government-or any other government that is possible-accepts this bill, it will be on the distinct understanding of enforcing it to accomplish the end I have been outlining. I think there is no question about that.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not wish unduly to interrupt my hon. friend, but would a small amendment to the act already in existence not do everything that this bill proposes to do?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very good; we will accept that amendment from the hon. minister if he will propose it.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 22, 1923