1946-04-03

PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I rise to a question of privilege. It has reference to a statement which is alleged to have been made by Senator Ralph Horner and which appeared in the Ottawa Evening Journal of April 2. The article is headed, "Western senator recommended Emma Woikin," and the first paragraph reads:
Mrs. Emma Woikin, one of the twelve temporary civil servants charged as a suspect in the investigation of the Russian spy network, was recommended for a government job by Senator Ralph Horner.
"Yes," the Progressive Conservative senator from Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan, to-day told the Evening Journal, "I recommended Emma Woikin-but for the char service-not as a cipher clerk in the code room of the external affairs department."
The senator, a big, bluff and frankly-spoken man, has been "a little annoyed" at the way things have worked out.
The paragraph to which I wish to refer to particularly is as follows:
"The only reason Emma Woikin found her way into a stenographic position, first at the passport office and then in the cipher division of external affairs," said the senator, "was because her father and brothers year after year have voted Liberal for Mr. Mackenzie King."
I asked the under-secretary of state for external affairs if he would give me a statement as to how Mrs. Woikin came to be employed in the Department of External Affairs, and I have the following from Mr. Robertson:
Due to the pressure of work in the passport office in the autumn of 1943. the Department of External Affairs, on September 8, 1943, requisitioned the civil service commission for three additonal clerks grade 2 and two typists grade
2.	At the same time, treasury board was requested to establish temporary positions to take care of the new appointees. On September 10, 1943, Mrs. Emma Woikin, who was classified as a typist, grade 1, was assigned by the civil service commission to one of the new temporary posts as no grade 2 typist was then available.
That is the official statement on the matter. I might add that until I heard the name of Mrs. Woikin mentioned in connection with *>
the investigation now proceeding I had no knowledge of there being any person of that name, either in Prince Albert constituency or in the public service of Canada. Unlike Senator Horner I neither recommended Mrs. Woikin for a government job nor was I
Travel Abroad

requested by her or by anyone to make a recommendation on her behalf. I know nothing whatever about her appointment; it was entirely a civil service matter and procedure.



PRESS REPORTS REFERRING TO SPEECH OF MR. KNOWLES ON MARCH 19

Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege which has to do with a newspaper report making reference to a speech which I made in this House of Commons on March 19. The report appeared in yesterday's Winnipeg daily newspapers; as a matter of fact it is exactly the same in both the Free Press and the Tribune. It reports a political meeting held on Monday night at which Mr. David Graham charged, on the basis of the speech which I made on March 19, that when I was in Moscow recently I failed to present the Canadian viewpoint to the Russian people whom I met, and that I failed to assure them that they need have no fear of our western democracies. It is stated also that I had urged friendship for their spy activities and that my advocacy of understanding was a one-way proposition.
I rise to this question of privilege because it is statements of this kind that make it difficult to establish the type of relationship which we all want between yds country and the Soviet Union, and also because the facts are the very opposite of the statements made by Mr. Graliam. Not only did I in my speech urge various efforts such as the publishing in Moscow of a Canadian paper in Russian so as to interpret Canadian ways to these people, but when I was there I made the same kind of appeal I am now making here. I am now seeking to persuade the Canadian people to understand the Russians. Similarly when I was in Moscow I went to a great deal of effort to try to get the people with whom I was in conversation to understand our ways and to realize that what we really want is friendship. I shall continue my effort to achieve understanding and friendship on a mutual basis.


Mr. POULIOT:: If you had not been to Moscow you would not have risen to-day.



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Second report of the special committee on
war expenditures and economies-Mr. Isnor.
/

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. E. HARRIS (Grey-Bruce) presented the first report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons

appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for a distinctive national flag, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table order in council P.C. 1272, April 2, 1946, revoking order in council P.C. 1841 of March 10, 1942, as amended, concerning the issuance of exit permits to women, and children under the age of sixteen years, proceeding to destinations outside the western hemisphere.
I should like to say something about the order in council which I have just tabled. It removes a form of travel restriction which has been in existence since March 10, 1942. Under the regulation that was introduced at that time, and which has been amended on several occasions since, the movement of women, and children under the age of sixteen, to destinations outside the western hemisphere has been limited by the necessity of their securing an exit permit before being permitted to leave Canada. As I mentioned on Friday last, the government is anxious to relax war-time controls wherever possible, and in view of the gradual improvement in travel conditions it has been decided to abolish the requirement of an exit permit immediately.
The result of the present order in council is that, subject to the existing rules of passport control exercised by the Department of External Affairs, women and children residing in Canada are free to make their own travel arrangements without first obtaining an exit permit from the immigration branch of the Department of Mines and Resources.
I wish, however, to emphasize that, although the improvement on general travel conditions has made it possible to remove the exit permit restrictions, this step should not be taken as an indication that the strain on transportation facilities to Europe and the far east has ceased to exist. Moreover, as the Minister of Mines and Resources mentioned in his statement on Monday last, there are severe difficulties in connection with travel from Europe to this country, and these necessarily affect any plans for travel from Canada that involve a later return trip back to Canada. The transportation of Canadian servicemen and their dependents from the United Kingdom and the continent to this country is

Atomic Energy
being granted the highest priority in the allocation of west-bound shipping space. This movement will require a very large .percentage of available passenger accommodation for many months to come, and the government desires to warn persons intending to travel to the United Kingdom and Europe during 1946 that no assurance can be given of return transportation until the needs of the repatriation programme have been filled. It is further pointed out that a very large waiting list has developed in the United Kingdom of persons who are not at present eligible for westbound shipping passage. These applicants, which number in the thousands, will be accommodated first, and temporary visitors to the United Kingdom and the continent will of course be required to take their places on the waiting list. As far as can be foreseen, this will unfortunately involve very long delays.
So far as passport control is concerned, I have already mentioned that certain types of administrative control on .passport endorsements are being exercised by the Department of External Affairs. These have been necessitated by the limited housing, food and transportation facilities in Europe and the far east, and by the desire of the government to restrict non-essential movement from Canada to the countries where conditions are particularly serious as a result of the war. The past few months have been marked by a gradual improvement in these conditions, and I am able to state that the question of passport control is at present under review.



ATOMIC ENERGY


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruiek-shank) made mention of a question of which he had sent me notice and which I said I would reply to to-day. With the permission of the house I will now read the question and give the reply. His question was:
In view of the fact that Canada is one of the three partners in the development of atomic energy, and that the United States has made provision for 120 senators and congressmen to attend Operation Crossroad at Bikini Atoll, will the Prime Minister tell the house how many Canadian senators and members of parliament will be sent to represent Canada's interest?
The answer is: I understand that the United States government had invited a small congressional committee of less than ten senators and congressmen to attend the operation which
it was proposed to have held at Bikini Atoll. As the hon. member knows, this operation has been postponed sine die. The operation was to be entirely sponsored by the UnitedNStates government, ^nd invitations were therefore issued by them. We had received an indication that some Canadian observers would be welcome. It has not been decided who would be selected for this mission.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What airports have been disposed of by the
Department of National Defence for Air in each of the following provinces (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Manitoba?	_
2.	What disposition has been made of building equipment and landing fields at each of the following .points in Saskatchewan (a) Estevan; (b) Weyburn; (c) Assiniboia; (d) Mossbank; (e) Moose Jaw?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	(a) Alberta: Airdrie, Blackfalds, Bowden, Champion, DeWinton, Ensign, Frank Lake, Gladys Ridge, Granum, High River, Holsom, Innisfail, Inverlake, Lethbridge (in part), Medicine Hat (in part), Netook, Penhold, Shepard, Standoff, Whitla, Woodhouse.
(b)	Saskatchewan:	Assiniboia, Brada, Boharm, Brora, Burdick, Buttress, Caron, Chandler, Davidson, Davidson West, Dafoe, Estevan, Hagen, Halbrite, Lethburn, Mossbank, North Battleford, Osier, Outram, Prince Albert, Ralph, Regina (in part), St. Aldwyn, Vanscoy, Weyburn, Wymark.(c)	Manitoba:	Brandon, Chater, Dauphin,
Douglas, Eden, Elgin, Hartney, Lanore, MacDonald, Neepawa, Netley Lake, North Junction, Oberon, Petrel, Rivers, Souris, Valley River, Virden.
2.	Buildings and Landing Fields
(a)	Estevan:	Transferred to Department
of Transport on direction of Crown Assets Allocation Committee, 19-12-44.
(b)	Weyburn:	Transferred to Department
of Transport on direction of Crown Assets Allocation Committee, 6-10-45.
(c)	Assiniboia:	Transferred to Department
of Transport on direction of Crown Assets Allocation Committee, 20-8-45.
(d)	Mossbank:	Transferred to War Assets
Corporation on direction of Crown Assets Allocation Committee. 9-11-45.
(e)	Moose Jaw: No disposition as yet.
Questions

Equipment
(a)	Estevan: Arrangements have been made for the removal to other RCAF units of any equipment required for continued use by the RCAF. Surplus equipment has been declared to War Assets Corporation for disposal.
(b)	Weyburn:	This site is being used for
the storage of equipment required by the RCAF. Some equipment, however, has been declared surplus to War Assets Corporation.
(c)	Assiniboia:	Same	as	(a).
(d)	Mossbank: Same as (b).
(e)	Moose Jaw: Same as (b).
EXPORT i PERMITS-MEN'S AND CHILDREN'S CLOTHING


Mr. HAZEN:: To what firms were export permits issued in 1945 and to March 1, 1946, for the export of the following commodities and in what quantities (a) men's shiTts; (b) men's socks; (c) men's pyjamas; (d) men's shoes; (e) children's clothing ?


Mr. MacKINNON:: The department cannot divulge the names of applicants for export permits, inasmuch as this information is obtained in confidence from the firms applying for export permits.
		1945		1946-Jan. and Feb.	
		No. of Permits	Quantity	No. of Permits	Quantity
		Issued		Issued	
(a)	Men's Shirts	.. .. 691	280,926 units	209	89,265 units(b)	Men's Socks	.. .. 596	39,558 prs.	106	7,666 prs.(c)	Men's Pyjamas .. ..	.. .. 154	30,813 units	18	21,249 units(d)	Men's Shoes	.. .. 441	227,711 prs.	87	36,193 prs.(e)	Children's Clothing .	. .. 1,714	905,752 units	197	103,748 units


WAR ASSETS-MOWING EQUIPMENT
Mr. LENNARD:: What steps have been taken to dispose of the mowing equipment at No. 6, F.S.T.S., Dunn-vi-lle, Ontario?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: Preliminary arrangements only, having in view transfer of this equipment (with the exception of three items required for continued use by R.C.A.F.) to the Department of Transport when that department takes over the airport through Crown assets allocation committee.


DEPENDENTS' BOARD OP TRUSTEES
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1.	What is the dependents' board of trustees?
2.	To whom is it responsible?
3.	Who appoints the members of the board?
4.	Who are its members?
5.	What are its duties?
6.	Is it still operating?


Mr. ABBOTT:: .
1.	The dependents' board of trustees was established in January, 1942 to administer the dependents' supplementary grants fund established in the same year. The purpose of the said fund as administered by the said board is to establish a method of providing supplementary grants or special assistance on an equitable basis for dependents of members of the Armed Forces below the rank of Warrant Officer Class I in cases not provided for by the marriage allowance and dependents 
allowance regulations in circumstances where such dependents have special or emergency needs.
The board has its headquarters in Ottawa and operates through twenty-two regional dependents' advisory committees-twenty-one in Canada and one in the United Kingdom. All members of the board except the executive secretary and all members of the committees serve without remuneration.
2.	Minister of National Defence.
3.	The governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence.
4.	The board consists of a chairman and not more than nine members. Present active members are:
Jack Pembroke, Esq., Montreal, P.Q., (Chairman).
Arthur Huntingdon Brown, Esq., O.B.E., Ottawa, Ont.
Mrs. Catherine R. Collier, Bracken, Sask.
Philip Sydney Fisher, Esq., Montreal, P.Q.
John Walter McKee, Esq., Ottawa, Ont.
Frank Neal Stapleford, Esq., Toronto, Ont.
J. Douglas Winslow, Esq., Woodstock, N.B.
Garnet Wesley Dunn, Esq., Winnipeg, Man. (Executive Secretary).
The Chairman of the dependents' allowance board is an advisory member of the board.

Questions
5.	See also answer to question 1. The duties of the board are:
(a)	to appoint chairmen and members of committees, as required, including as members of such committees local representatives of all or any of the following, namely:-the dependents' allowance board, the Department of Pensions and National Health, the Soldier Settlement of Canada, the Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L., and local welfare or service agencies;
(b)	to administer the dependents' supplementary grants fund in accordance with the terms of this order;
(c)	to receive applications for such supplementary grants or special assistance not provided for by the marriage allowance or dependents' allowance regulations, as may be forwarded by the committees or submitted in such manner as may be designated by the board and to obtain such reports on the applications as the board may deem necessary and to determine whether any supplementary grant or special assistance should be made or given.
(d)	to pay such supplementary grants or to give such special assistance not provided for by the marriage allowance or dependents' allowance regulations as the board may determine to or on behalf of or for the benefit of dependents in those cases where the board are satisfied that such supplementary grants or special assistance are necessary to prevent hardships, to relieve misfortune, to meet domestic emergencies or to enable dependents summoned to hospital in respect of members of the forces "seriously ill" or "dangerously ill" to meet the necessary travel and transportation expenses.
(e)	to determine subject to the approval of the Minister of National Defence the terms and conditions upon which special advances may be granted to committees for the purpose of enabling such committees to provide supplementary grants or special assistance to dependents in cases of emergency requiring immediate remedy for which moneys payable under marriage allowance or dependents' *allowance regulations are inadequate and to make such advances from time to time in accordance with the terms and conditions so determined;
(f)	to carry out any investigations relating to a dependent which may be required by the Department of National Defence and to report thereon.
6.	Yes.


RADIO BROADCASTING-GOOD FRIDAY AND EASTER PROGRAMMES
Mr. CHURCH:: What arrangements .are being made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for suitable programmes on Good Friday, Holy Thursday and Easter Sunday?


Mr. McCANN:: The Broadcasting Corporation has advised that programmes announced for these days include the following: April 18, Holy Week meditations April 19, Good Friday church service; special Easter time programme for children; periods of special music; April 21, religious period; church of the air; special Easter music.


ROYAL, CANADIAN AIR FORCE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many permanent R.C.A.F. stations are there (a) in Ontario; (b) in Quebec?
2.	What decison has been reached concerning the stations of (a) St. Hubert; (b) Aneienne Lorette; (c) Mont-Joli, and (d) St. Jean, in the province of Quebec?
3.	How many French-speaking officers have been kept in the interim air force, from the grade of squadron leader upwards, and who are they?
4.	What happened to the Escadrille des Alou-ettes, and what was the reason of any decision taken in that case?
5.	Are there any other squadrons in the air force and what and where are they?
6.	How many high ranking R.C.A.F. officers who were on the staff of the air defence department on November 23, 1944, are still on that staff?
7.	Who are they and what do they do?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	(a) Eleven; (b) two.
2.	(a) An R.C.A.F. (Regular) Station Headquarters and two Auxiliary Squadrons will be located at St. Hubert; (b) An R.C.A.F. (Regular) Detachment and one Auxiliary Squadron will be located at this site; (c) Reserve Aerodrome; (d) Will be disbanded and declared surplus.
3.	Eleven French Canadian Officers-Wing Commander J. A. D. B. Richer, DFC; Wing Commander L. G. G. J. Archambault; Wing Commander J. J. M. Viau, DFC; Wing Commander J. H. L. Lecomte, DFC; Wing Commander D. B. Bamineau; Squadron Leader L. P. J. Dupuis, DFC; Squadron Leader F. M. Gobeil, AFC; Squadron Leader J. R. A. E. Emond; Squadron Leader J. T. E. M. Paquette; Squadron Leader V. E. Gagne: Squadron Leader E. J. I. Gauthier.
Only a portion of the selections for the interim force have been made and it is anticipated that additional French Canadian names will be added to the above list.

Questions

4.	This squadron was disbanded on 5th Sept., 1945, as a result of the termination of hostilities with Japan and will be re-formed as an auxiliary squadron for Quebec City.
5.	Yes. Two Heavy Bomber Squadrons, Overseas; Three Transport Squadrons, Overseas; Three Fighter Squadrons, Overseas; One Air Observation Squadron, Overseas; One Transport Squadron, Dartmouth; One Ferry Squadron, Rockcliffe; One Communication Squadron, Rockcliffe; One Photographic Survey Squadron, Rockcliffe.
6.	Air Commodores and above in Canada and Overseas, 23.
7.	Air Marshal R. Leckie, CB, DSO, DSC, DFC, Chief of the Air Staff.
Air Marshal G. O. Johnson, CB, MC, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, RCAF Overseas.
Air Vice-Marshal W. A. Curtis, CBE, DSC, Air Member for Air Staff.
Air Vice-Marshal T. A. Lawrence, CB. Air Officer Commanding North West Air Command, Edmonton.
Air Vice-Marshal K. M. Guthrie, CBE, Air Officer Commanding, No. 2 Air Command, Winnipeg.
Air Vice-Marshal A. L. Morfee, 'CBE, Air Officer Commanding, Eastern Air Command, Halifax.
Air Vice-Marshal R. E. McBurney, CBE, Air Officer Commanding, Maintenance Command, Uplands.
Air Vice-Marshal A. L. James, CBE, Air Member for Research and Development.
Air Vice-Marshal G. E. Wait, CBE, Air Member, Canadian Joint Staff, Washington.
Air Vice-Marshal E. E. Middleton, CBE, Air Officer Commanding, No. 1 Air Command, Trenton.
Air Vice-Marshal C. R. Slemon, CB, CBE, Air Member for Supply and Organization.
Air Vice-Marshal H. L. Campbell, CBE, Air Member for Personnel.
Air Vice-Marshal J. L. Plant, CBE, Air Officer Commanding. Western Air Command, Vancouver.
Air Commodore A. L. Johnson, CBE, Director of Aeronautical Inspection.
Air Commodore F. G. Wait, CBE, Chief Staff Officer, Eastern Air Command.
Air Commodore A. D. Ross, GC, OBE, Commandant, R.C.A.F. Staff College, Toronto.
Air Commodore J. G. Bryans, OBE, Director of Construction Engineering.
Air Commodore W. A. Orr, OBE, Deputy Chairman, Senior Officers' Selection Board.
Air Commodore D. M. Smith, CBE, Chief Staff Officer, Western Air Command, Vancouver.

Air Corhmodore1 J. M. Murray, CBE, Director of Accounts and Finance.
Air Commodore D. E. MacKell, CBE, Deputy Air Member for Personnel.
Air Commodore J. L. Hurley, CBE, Chief Staff Officer, No. 2 Air Command, Winnipeg.
Air Commodore F. R. Miller, CBE, Chief Staff Officer, Maintenance Command, Uplands.


ACCIDENTS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many people have been (a) killed; (b) injured through traffic accidents on highways in Canada since the beginning of the war in 1939 to August, 1945?
2.	How many fatal accidents from drowning have there been in Canada during the same period?
3.	How many (a) fatal accidents; (b) injuries have occurred at l^vel railway crossings in Canada during this period?
4.	How -many persons, adults and children, have died or have been injured as the result of fires in dwelling houses and homes, in Canada, during the same period?
5.	How many persons have been killed or injured in Canada from other causes during the same period?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	(a) Persons killed in motor vehicle accidents September 1, 1939 to June 30, 1945, 9,028; (b) Persons injured through traffic accidents January 1939 to December 1944, 149,019.
2.	Fatal accidents from drowning September 1, 1939 to December 31, 1944, 5,097.
3.	(a) Fatal accidents at level railway crossings January 1, 1939 to December 31, 1944, 727; (b) Injuries at level railway crossings January7 1, 1939 to December 31, 1944, 2,264.
4.	Persons who died in conflagrations September 1, 1939 to December 31, 1944, 1,221, on basis of. data for three years 87 percent were in homes.
5.	Persons killed from other accidents September 1, 1939 to December 31, 1944, 22,488, number injured not-available.
civil SERVICE-DISMISSALS-OTHER MEANS OF SUPPORT


Mrs. STRUM:: How many men have been dismissed from the civil service because they have other means of support through (>a) inheritance; (b) by virtue of marriage to women who can support them; (c) returns from accumulated savings, to make employment for (1) returning service women; (2) unmarried women who are selfsupporting; (3) unmarried women with dependents; (4) married women who must by their earnings supplement family income; (5) widows of veterans?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. MARTIN:: Perhaps I might answer this question orally. The civil service commission advises me that no dismissals have 'been made under any of the headings mentioned in the question. Certainly the general replacement or reduction policy takes no account of such considerations.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-OUT-OF-WORK BENEFITS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: How many ex-service men and women, by provinces, are at this date in receipt of out-of-work benefits ?


Mr. TUCKER:: As at March 31, 1946	Male	FemalePrince Edward Island .	. 1.288	9Nova Scotia	. 5,120	30New Brunswick 	. 2,751	19Quebec 	. 7,067	33Ontario 	. 12,163	54Manitoba 	. 6,818	72Saskatchewan 	. 3,827	36Alberta 	. 3,592	25British Columbia 	. 4,239	6146,865	339
Combined total, 47,204.


PROPERTIES UNDER FEDERAL LEASE OR RENTAL- HAMILTON AND WENTWORTH COUNTY
Mr. ROSS (Hamilton East):: 1.	What -properties in the city of Hamilton and the county of Wentworth are under lease or rental to. the dominion government?
2.	Who are the owners of each property?
3.	On what basis is each one rented?
4.	What are the terms of each lease?


WAR ASSETS-ORDNANCE STORES AND MEDICAL BUILDINGS, KAMLOOPS
Mr. FULTON:: 1.	How many buildings were (a) built by; (b) leased by the dominion government at Kamloops, British Columbia, to house the branches of (1) No. 11 district ordnance stores; (2) No. 11 district medical stores, and (3) R.C.E. personnel and stores, located there?
2.	How many buildings for each branch?
3.	How many buildings for each branch have now been vacated?
4.	What action has been taken or is contemplated to dispose of these buildings?
5.	Have any buildings yet been listed for sale or sold or leased by War Assets Corporation, and if so, which buildings?
subsidies, 1945-6


Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What subsidies were paid by the government during the year 1945?
2.	What subsidies have been paid since January 1, 1946?	.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WINTERS:: 1- Were fish products included in discussions leading up to the understandings -reached between Great Britain and Canada and announced by the Minister of Agriculture on the 26th March, 1946?
2.	If so, were understandings involving fish products -arrived at?
3.	If understandings involving fish products were arrived at, state types, quantities and sections of Canada from which purchases will be made.
PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE-SASKATCHEWAN_


FIELD INSPECTORS AND SUPERVISORS
Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	What are the names of the field inspectors and supervisors who operated in the province of Saskatchewan under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in 1945?
2.	How long was each of them employed during the said year?
3.	What salary did each receive during 1945?
4.	What amount of travelling expenses was -paid to each during 1945?
63260-34i


WAR ASSETS CORPORATION-STAFF
[Stage Direction]
v Mr. FRASER:
1.	How many employees are employed by the War Assets Corporation?
2.	What are the names of all employees of War Assets Corporation receiving salaries, or wages, of $3,000 per year or over? .
3.	In what departments of W-ar Assets Corporation are these people employed?
4.	Where are they employed?
5.	What is the total amount of salaries, and wages, paid by War Assets Corporation per month?

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CRUICKSHANIv:
1.	How many Japanese farms have been sold m the Fraser Valley, under the Veterans Land Act (a) veterans; (b) civilians?
2.	What is the legal description and the purchase price to the Japanese and the sale price of each property, either to -a veteran or civilian, under the Veterans Land Act or any other branch?

Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	On what date is it intended to close (a) the training centre, and (b) the brigade camp presently located at Vernon. British Columbia?
2.	Will the buildings erected to house the -personnel stationed at Vernon during wartime (a)
Immigration

be'left empty ; (b) be disposed of through War Assets Corporation, or (c) be kept available for the use of the reserve army during summer training ?
3.	If (c), is it intended to dispose of some of the .buildings or will all the buildings be kept for this purpose?
4.	What will be the strength of any permanent personnel held at Vernon to maintain and supervise this camp?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Order for return.


Mr. STIRLING:: May I demur at the answer suggested by the Minister of National Defence with regard to this question. It refers only to one department. The answers,
I should have thought, would have been quite short and simple enough to find their place in Hansard, instead of an answer being delayed until a return is brought down.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, I said "order for return" because there was a question as to how many would be disposed of through War Assets Corporation, but it seems to me there are two departments involved.


Grote Stirling: The minister knows that; he knows what will be described as surplus, and not until then can another department come in.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But I do not know how many will be disposed of through War Assets Corporation. That is determined by the crown assets allocation committee. We declare them surplus in the army, and they may be disposed of by War Assets Corporation, or they may be disposed of by some other department. There are, I think, two departments involved.
" Mr. GRAYDON: Could they be disposed of through any other department than War Assets Corporation?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. War Assets Corporation is a separate corporation. They might go to the Department of Health and Welfare, for instance. That would not be determined by the Department of National Defence.


Mr. GRAYDON:: For disposal?


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, for use by other government departments.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. DORION:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents concerning a contract awarded by the Department of Trade and Commerce and the post office department for the transport service between Ile-aux-Coudres .and Les E-boulements, Charlevoix county, .from .September 1, 1935, to date.


Frédéric Dorion: I ask leave to withdraw this motion; I have received the information.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Motion withdrawn.


CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, resolutions, telegrams, petitions and other documents exchanged between the government or any officials thereof .and any person or persons relating to Bill No. 20, 1945, and Bill No. 7, 1946, an Act respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and status of aliens.


B.C. SOUTHERN PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY- DIVERSION INTO UNITED STATES
Mr. HERRIDGE:: For ia copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Prime Minister of Canada or any member or official of the government and the premier of British Columbia or any member or official of the government of British Columbia, between January 1, 1943 and January 1, 1946, relative to the diversion of the British 'Columbia 'Southern provincial highway into the United 'States territory between the towns of Laurier and Patterson in the state of Washington.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. R.' THATCHER (MoOse Jaw) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the advisability of instituting a reasonable immigration programme, planned in accordance with Canada's absorptive capacity, its economic needs and possibilities of development.
He said:	In introducing this resolution on
immigration, I do so with the knowledge that, perhaps no single issue in Canada to-day is fraught with so much emotional thinking and prejudice.
Notwithstanding this, the fact remains that to-day thousands of Europeans are knocking at Canada's door, eager to make new homes in this country. These people are not castoffs or failures; many are the best their respective countries have to offer. Among them are men who fought long and gallantly for the allied cause during the recent war. This parliament must decide, and decide soon, whether it is in the national interest to admit into Canada a number of these people, or whether it is in the national interest to maintain our present immigration laws.
Whatever the view of hon. members may be, there is no denying the fact that immigration has been the life-history of this nation. There

Immigration
are few Canadians who do not trace back their ancestry to at least one nation of the old world. In this very House of Commons thirty-four members originally were European immigrants.
You will note that the resolution before the house is framed in a very general way. It asks the government to consider "the advisability of instituting a reasonable immigration programme." I hope that that wording will not give offence to hon. members on either side of the house.
Suppose we look for a moment at Canada's present immigration policy. Very few realize how extremely restrictive that policy is. Dating back to 1930, it is based largely on the economic fears and errors of the great depression. The policy was founded on the hopelessness and lack of faith in the country's future wrhich was prevalent during the nineteen thirties. All immigrants other than British and American subjects, with a few minor exceptions, are virtually excluded. In the five year period 1940 to 1944 an average of less than 10,000 immigrants were allowed to enter Canada annually.
In my opinion there are three main weaknesses in our present immigration policy. First it is based on racial discrimination and outworn prejudices. The law sets up several preferred and non-preferred groups. Britons and Americans are included in the preferred category, and also in the select group are the citizens of such nations as France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, the Scandinavian countries, and one or two others. The law places in the nonpreferred category those who come from Poland, the Ukraine, Austria, Czechoslovakia and a few other countries. In a final category are placed those who come from Turkey, Roumania, Greece, Italy and those who are of Jewish nationality. Those people can get into the country only by special permit. It seems strange that during the recent war, at the very time Canadians were being urged to enlist to help in eradicating racial intolerance abroad, our own nation was practising similar intolerance at home in selecting its immigrants. Surely it is more sensible to pick out immigrants for their skills, for their trades, for their physical backgrounds, than to take them for their race. For instance, it is quite conceivable that a central European, a hardy sturdy peasant born on the soil or, say a Finlander, an experienced logger, would make a better immigrant that a slum dweller from some city in iEngland. I believe, therefore,
that the first weakness of our immigration policy is that our immigrants are picked primarily for their race.
In the second place, it is very difficult to justify our present, immigration policy on purely humanitarian grounds. The war in Europe resulted in millions of people being uprooted and scattered far and wide. Many of. them cannot return to their old homes, and most of them are living in albject poverty. There is widespread lack of shelter and clothing. Food is so scarce that thousands of them are dying of malnutrition. Confiscation of property has been fairly general throughout many European countries. Certainly racial and religious prejudices prevail at every hand. Hundreds of .thousands of orphans are homeless in Europe.
Will you permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote from a letter written by W. Wanka, a Sudeten German who emigrated to Canada in 1039:
In 1939 Canada opened her gates to 1,000 Sudetans. They settled on the land and found happiness in this great country. The mere fact that we are here to-day has kept many of our friends and relatives still in Europe from succumbing to black despair during the misery of the past months. The hopes of many thousands of anti-nazi Sudetens are centred upon us. Hardly a letter reaches us in which we are not asked to voice their plight, and to ask Canada anew for homes for them.
Many of those who are suffering to-day are former allies. The vast majority of these refugees were active opponents or victims of the fascist countries. The condition of these people, which is beyond description, pleads for them. Canada, in the interests of justice and humanity,_ cannot indefinitely ignore that plea.
In the third place, I believe that our immigration policy is contrary to the interests of the nation as a whole. No thoughtful person can travel across Canada without a feeling that there is an immense area whose economic resources have not yet been properly exploited. The general process, of settlement has been neither complete nor satisfactory. A moderate, well-planned immigration policy would have numerous advantages for Canadians generally In the first place, the larger population, by increasing the home market, would aid the economic stabilization of our economy. To-day, to a considerable degree, the prosperity of Canada is dependent upon our foreign export markets. If these foreign markets are good, generally speaking Canada is prosperous. If these foreign markets are bad, usually the opposite is true.
In other words, the economic well-being of Canada to-day is dependent to a large degree on conditions over which we have no control. This is particularly true of our agriculture.
Immigration
[Stage Direction]
The largest .proportion of our wheat, hogs, cattle and other products are, I believe, shipped overseas. However, it is also true of our manufacturing industries. During the war our manufacturing capacity, I am told, was increased by thirty to forty per cent. If in the future we are to avoid idle factories and unemployment, if this greater plant capacity is to be fully utilized, we must do one of two things: either we must find a greater sxport market, or we must increase our home market. Immigration would permit Canada to increase her home market, thus curtailing our dependence on unstable foreign markets.
In the second place, immigration would ease the tax burden of Canadians. It was believed at one time that Canada would have a population several times its present twelve million people. Our provincial government buildings, with their large staffs and very large overhead, were set up with that thought in mind. Our railroad development also has had as its objective the serving of a population several times as large as twelve million. Additional people are needed to carry the heavy financial load which we have taken up. Our taxation burden could be eased by spreading it over a larger number of people.	«
In the third place, under certain circumstances it is probable that immigration would actually increase employment in Canada. All immigrants need new homes, furniture and other necessities of life. If they are going on a farm they need farm machinery, equipment and tools. Manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and labourers would all benefit by this new business.
A further direct reaction would be to increase railway freight and railway passenger traffic, and I think it is quite probable that the railroads would have to take on additional employees if we had an immigration policy. Moreover, where the immigrant is one who is likely to invest capital, or who has some special and needed skill, he is likely to enhance the employment of Canadians. For instance, I am particularly mindful of a Czech refugee who moved to Saskatoon around 1938. He left Czechoslovakia just ahead of Hitler's occupation of that country. He had been a butcher in Poland. When he reached Saskatoon he found an empty factory building, where he m proceeded to set himself up in the meatpacking business. To-day that refugee employs about 600 men and women. The immigrant, unless he comes to some unproductive employment, creates additional work for the people already .in the community and adds to the general wealth of that community.

In the fourth place, immigrants bring to the nation new aptitudes, new skills and new scientific knowledge. Let us not forget that in centuries past the Flemish weavers, the Huguenots, and others brought new skills and a new outlook to Great Britain and helped to a considerable degree to make the empire industrially what she is to-day. Canada should benefit similarly from the gradual enrichment that comes from fresh streams of newcomers. For example, it is a well known fact that during the latter years of the recent war, immigrant scientists in the United States played a tremendous part in helping to split the atom and in making the atomic bomb. Who can say how the course of history would have been affected had the United States refused, to accept those immigrants at that time? I have heard it said1-it may be incorrect but I have heard the statement made

that some of these very scientists who went to the United States tried to get into Canada and could not do so because of our immigration laws. I suggest therefore that immigration will bring new skills and new aptitudes to the country which will prove very valuable to us.
Finally, I believe that Canada needs a larger population for purely defensive reasons. In this land-hungry world, twelve million people cannot hold half a continent indefinitely. I believe our poorly filled dominion is a danger to peace. We are asking for trouble if we refuse to take elementary precautions to increase our population in proportion to the nation's absorptive capacity. If we steadily refuse to take steps to populate our country, we may find in the future that some other nation will step in and do it for us.
In the past, most opposition to immigration has come from organized labour. This feeling was based largely on the premise that immigrants would deprive Canadians of work. Conceivably this view might be justified if there were only a limited and defined amount of work in the country, which could be divided among the people. However, most labour leaders have now accepted the belief that immigration by itself produces new wealth, creates demands for manufactured goods and services, and acts generally as an aid to trade, business, and employment.
Many immigrants bring capital and business experience with them, and become employers of labour rather than employees. There are also some immigrants who are willing to take jobs for which enough native applicants cannot be found. These classes certainly do not "take away jobs from Canadians." Moreover, a large number of immigrants are not wage earners and hence are not com-

Immigration
peti'tors. Among these are people too old to work, women who remain housewives, and young children.
The economic and social maladjustments to which our attention is drawn by the immigration issue are for the most part problems which are fundamental to our present society, whether or not immigration is involved. For instance, in the United States the problems associated with poverty, illiteracy and so forth are nowhere more apparent than in the southeastern cotton belt, a region where there has been the least immigration in past years.
It is interesting to note that at its 1944 convention the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada passed the following resolution:
Be it resolved that Canada's Immigration Act be revised to make it possible for Canada to do her share in granting refuge to her full quota of refugees.	,	,
Be it further resolved that a policy of accepting immigrants into this country be proceeded with as long as such policy in no way adversely affects living standards or the welfare of our present Canadian population.
The Canadian Congress of Labour passed a similar resolution at its convention in 1944, which reads as follows:
Be it'resolved that the C.C.L. in convention assembled request the dominion government to institute a concrete plan of immigration during the post-war period, without any danger of displacement of present labour.
In passing, it is interesting to note the steps that other nations have taken recently with regard to immigration. Crowded England has admitted some two hundred thousand refugees during and since the war. The United States has admitted thousands, and plans to bring in many more. Australia recently announced plans to absorb seventy thousand adults and seventeen thousand children a year. France is actively encouraging immigration. Canada, one of the most lightly populated areas in the world, appears to lag behind.
In conclusion may I say that I am not advocating a policy of wide-open immigration, nor would I support such a proposal. Rather I am asking the government to enunciate a moderate, well-planned immigration policy based on Canada's absorptive capacity and her moral responsibilities to the united nations organization.
It seems to me that the programme should be a flexible one, taking into consideration from year to year the labour needs of the nation. Moreover, I believe that immigrants should be picked not on a basis of race, but for their skills and for their physical backgrounds. Above all else, the policy must in no way be allowed to affect adversely the welfare of our present population. To-day the lives and liberties of millions throughout
the world are in danger. Canada, in keeping with her traditions, must bear a share of this great human problem. A great opportunity for our nation is at hand. I do not think that we should delay in taking advantage of it.
Mr. D. A. CROLL (Spadina):: May I join with the hon. member who has just spoken on this question and say that he has presented the problem not only fairly but capably. I, too, do not advocate an open-door policy, but I do advocate immigration. I have here a few figures which I think would be interesting to the house. There are few people who know that the area of Canada is three and a half million square miles or fifty per cent larger than continental Europe, which is
2.116.000	square miles in area. While Europe supports four hundred million people we have approximately twelve million people. It might also be interesting to note that the unoccupied agricultural land of Canada amounts to
293.000	square miles, or 80.000 square miles more than the area occupied at the present time. As I- have just said, the population of Canada is approximately twelve millions with a distribution of 3-7 inhabitants per square mile as compared with Belgium with 802 inhabitants per square mile.
Most hon. members have read the report recently issued by the dominion bureau of statistics. This report, based on present trends, states that the population of Canada is likely to reach fifteen millions in 1990. The planning and development of Canada from confederation on were based on continually expanding population. Since the first world war it has become evident that the trends have been other than what were expected. There were three reasons for that. The first was the heavy emigration to the United States; the second was the smallet Canadian families, and the third was the sharp decline in immigration from Europe. The first two factors were outside the scope of the government because they were governed by social and economic forces; but the third factor was the result of a positive act carried out by the government. The door was closed. It is more important to-day than it has ever been to examine the problem and survey present conditions on both sides of the door. N
I have a few more statistics which I should like to give to the house. At confederation the population of this country was 2,700,000. Then came the Sifton immigration policy from 1896 to 1911, and it brought 3,000,000 immigrants into Canada. In 1906 the number was 211,653; in 1907, 272,409; in 1910, 286,839, and in 1911, 33,288. From 1911 to 1930 we averaged 100,000 annually, but there were two
Immigration

high years. In 1912 we brought in 375,756, and in 1913, 400,870. In one year we brought in only 41,000. In 1931 we brought in 27,500, and in 1935, 11,000. During other years immigration was negligible.
Canada must take cognizance of its changed economy. We have become a great industrial country, but can we afford to neglect our agricultural classes? To-day the farmers are begging for labour. We cannot constantly rely upon German prisoners of war and conscientious objectors to pull us out of the hole.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the Japanese.


David Arnold Croll: Workers are needed for the heavy industries, the construction industry, the mining industry . and the logging industry. We need domestics in this country, and we need them badly. Agriculture is begging for labour. They need these people and they must have them very soon. Economists tell us that we need people not only to provide a domestic market but for our foreign markets. We cannot expect to export without doing some importing as well.	_
In so far as the man on the street is concerned, he is more than anxious to share the heavy 'burden of taxation with anybody at all. He knows that we need population. He does not know just how many people we need or where they should be placed; that is a matter for the government. It can give some direction in that regard. There are such people as we need and that we can absorb. They are available in countries with progressive economies and with domestic ideas. Through you, Mr. Speaker,
I must ask the government: What are we waiting for? Last session I pointed to the problem. This session I warn of the danger unless we attack the problem. I hope it will not be necessary for me to condemn the government at any time because they have not dealt with the problem.


Mr. A. L. SMITH (Chlgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by reading the resolution, because I think the mere reading of it will convince everyone that it is acceptable in its present form:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the advisability-
Those are the words.
-of instituting a reasonable immigration programme, planned in accordance with Canadas absorptive capacity, its economic needs and possibilities of development.
I -compliment the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) upon being able to read so well and to absorb what he -reads, because , it may be news to some hon. members that in December, 1942, a political party held a convention in the city of Winnipeg. I am quite sure that those -papers circulate as far as^ the benighted place in which my hon. friend lives.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not a benighted place.


Arthur Leroy Smith: It is not a benighted place? All right; we will let it go at that. I was merely trying to me humorous. This is what they said:
Canada is destined to be one of the world s great nations provided we vigorously develop our vast natural resources.

In considering any immigration policy we will first make sure that our own people, including primarily those in our armed forces and war industries have jobs.	.
We favour a long-term policy of immigration
Assure development of our vast natural resources and create employment.
Increase home consumption of our own products and thus make us more self-supporting and less dependent on the hazards of foreign markets.
Immigration must be selective. Preference must be given to those whose background, training and love of freedom best fit them for citizenship in Canada.
I do not read that as covering everything from A to Z in connection with this problem. The difficulty with that resolution of my own party is that it is open to the same criticism as are the remarks of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and of the mover of the resolution. It deals in generalities. It expresses hope, and I will be frank and say that I am not in position to improve very much upon what has been said by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, by the hon. member for Spadina, and by this resolution.
Let us be -practical about this thing. Consideration, yes; and I have no doubt that when the minister stands up he will tell us that they are giving it active consideration. But let me say this. Those of us who speak of the broad policy of immigration must be completely forgetful of our housing conditions. Anyone who suggests that at this moment we should bring into this country any number of persons is surely forgetful of the fact that at the moment we are unable to house our own people, particularly those who have returned to us from service in the Canadian forces.
But that is not an argument against the real wording of the resolution-"consideration." We have heard to-day from the hon. member for Spadina, whom I regard as the second best speaker in this house. I am not pointing to myself, because I really do not know who takes first place. I remember so well the hon. member discussing this matter last year, but, with respect, he said largely the same thing, -although he clothed it in different and more beautiful language.
There is no doubt about -the fact that a home market is the best market, but what is a home market that does not earn its living and cannot pay for the things which are produced? I know I am playing right into the hands of my hon. friends over here for a moment, but if they will follow me long enough they will find that the trail has turned and that they are still on the by-road which they have been on for a long, long time.
We have had immigration in days gone by. The hon. member for Spadina has told us of

Immigration
the many untilled acres that we have. We
had a debate in this house the other' day about untilled acres in the northern part of Alberta and British Columbia-I see the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) back there; but why are they not tilled? Because even now, with the world crying for food, we cannot till them effectively, on account of lack of transportation. This thing cannot be regarded all by itself; it must fit itself into the great puzzle-and I use that word advisedly-of our economy. I should get applause for that word from the planners to my left. After all, it is something which has been built up through changing circumstances through the lifetime of everybody in this house.
What happened under our last policy of bringing farmers into this country? They must serve on a farm for six months. How many of them are there to-day? Not five per cent of the people we brought in under that policy. I have no statistics to prove it, but in areas with which I am familiar I am perfectly certain that that percentage is fcorrect. Why will they not stay on the farms? For the reason advanced the other day in another building in which I was: that farming has not been profitable. You men in this House of Commons who come from farms and who have sons coming back from this war are having difficulty in maintaining them there. Why? It is easy to say that the farmer in Canada has been better off in the' past five years than he has ever been before. Certainly he has; there is no question about it. But the sons are not staying there because farming is not profitable.
I am going to pose a question for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), who I see has just come into the chamber; and I flatter myself it is because somebody told him I was speaking. If one looks over the history of Canada, and those of us who have been in this country for any length of time know this, it will be realized that the hard work has been done by the immigrant. The mines, the work in the brickyards, the labour on the farm, the bush labour-all that has been done by the immigrant. It is true that he grew up, got himself some cash, and as his intelligence merited or warranted he went on and did many other things. My own grandparents came to this country on the same basis. Now we have the German prisoners of war, to whom the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) referred, and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank)

if it was not he, it should have been-helped him out by talking about the Japs; and we have also the conscientious objectors. In spite of all that we are going to have some difficulty in
finding the men to do the hard work. I think the Minister of Labour, before he is through will be rather badly off to produce the men. We have already heard something in this house about beets-


Mr. MITCHELL:: It is the same all over the world-in the United States, Britain and Australia, for example.


Arthur Leroy Smith: (Calgary West): I am sorry the minister told me that, because having listened to him in this House of Commons, and having listened to the Prime Minister flattering him the other day, I thought we ' would be infinitely better off in that respect than those other countries. But that is the position. Do not think that I am blaming the men who went into the army or into industry and through study and apprenticeship and so on became skilled in certain trades. People do not go back in this world. Those who talk about the standard of living, and there are some foolish enough to do it, say that we have to tighten our belts. I believe in thrift; of course I do, but no body of people and no nation ever achieved a certain standard of living and then went back without a revolution. Let us just think that one over.
And so it is up to us here who ostensibly at . least-and I use the word ostensibly advisedly -are supposed to give guidance and direction to business and government, to start with that as a foundation, that people never go back unless there is very serious trouble.
I know .the procrastinator. It is easy to abuse him. It is easy to say to him: You are all wrong; open the doors, let the flood come in, and let nature or something else take its course. I for one, and I think I speak on behalf of those who are with me, certainly believe in selective immigration, but while we have any large measure of unemployment, and while our housing situation is as it exists to-day, I think it would be extreme folly to open our doors to immigration. We hear that Australia is going to treble its population of 7,000,000 within ten years, and that New Zealand, by going after this thing, is getting the cream of the crop. But the cream of the crop only shows in the testing. I think there will be plenty of people left who will want to come to this country when we have got over this period of crisis-because it is a period of crisis both in jobs and housing. I have no lack of faith in our future. I do not believe the estimates of our population as given by our leader the other day from some statistical brochure of the government. I think those estimates are low. I think we can develop. It is true to say that we have only
Immigration

scratched the surface as yet-and it is the precambrian shield, not the Laurentian, Mr. Spadina. I know that there are many things under the ground. We who live in a favoured part of Canada know a little bit about oil. We know that it does not stop at the international boundary, that it does not stop two miles underground. We know that we hav greatness before us. We know that we have splendid transportation systems. Years ago we claimed that we had too many. When I was going to school-perhaps I had better not go back that far-we were building the Grand Trunk Pacific, a great part of which has since been abandoned. But we have the structure-let us not deny it-the skeleton to which we can add the flesh. We have before us the greatest future of any country in the world. But let us not put a cancer in the side of that growing body now by destroying the faith of those who have come back in our determination to fulfil our promises to them.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who moved this resolution (Mr. Thatcher) has presented his case with great ability and with a high sense of humanity. He referred to the distress and poverty among the peoples of Europe, and he was perfectly right in recalling to this house the extreme distress that exists in Europe to-day. Nevertheless I regret to have to oppose this resolution, for reasons which I shall explain to the house shortly, in my mother tongue.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the 'advisability of instituting a reasonable immigration programme, planned in accordance with Canada's absorptive capacity, its economic needs and possibilities of development.
Experience shows that a reasonable immigration programme cannot possibly be carried out. I do not question the sincerity of the mover of this resolution. But I believe that the [DOT] time is ill-chosen even for its consideration. It is not when returned men are looking for employment and shelter that any thought should be given to opening the door to immigration, even on a moderate scale. When more than 200,000 people are unemployed, our duty is to solve that distressing problem rather than make it worse through immigration, however moderate it might be. There is no room for immigrants in Canada. Our sole duty is to put our own house in order. It would be inconceivable that we should do , otherwise; we would thus disregard our responsibilities. Let us at least show some fairness

to those who are in search of a job or a house. When our soldiers are still policing Germany, is it proper that the government should be asked to admit foreigners to this country? The most elementary justice demands that we bring our men back, up to the last one, before even thinking about immigration. Canada has first to ensure security for its own citizens. We are not in a position to absorb even a very small flow of immigrants. We must first restore our economic and social life. All our strength must be devoted to this worthy object. The economic needs of our country forbid all immigration. The reestablishment of social order is of greater import than any kind of immigration. The return to civilian life of our thousands of young men who have served in our armed forces must be undertaken with method, fairness and justice. Those whose careers have been interrupted or jeopardized by the war are entitled to assistance and protection by the government.
I now come to the third part of the resolution moved by the hon. member:
Canada's possibilities of development.
Our country is rich in natural resources. Part of them have not yet been developed. We do not need immigrants for that task. Our people are more than equal to it. The transition from the state of war to normal peacetime activities is a slow process. We are not short of experts and technicians for developing our resources. The conversion of our war industries into civilian industries would, alone, bring a solution for years to come to the problem of the development of our resources. We have the required manpower. How many heads of families and young men are receiving unemployment insurance benefits rather than the fruit of their labour which would ennoble their lives? Why should we allow immigrants to compete with our own citizens in the quest of jobs? This would be a disastrous policy. At a time when we must suppress subversive ideas and crime, which are frequently the result of idleness, I would not think of supporting any immigration policy. Let us find jobs for our own citizens first of all. That should be our chief consideration when thinking of an immigration policy. I am as much opposed to immigration as I am in favour of Canadian citizenship.
(Text):


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: In rising to support this motion, may I do as my colleague did, so there may be no misunderstanding, and read the resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the

Immigration
advisability of instituting a reasonable immigration programme, planned in accordance with Canada's absorptive capacity, its economic needs and possibilities of development.
First of all may I say that to some extent I agree with my colleague who spoke on this subject a few minutes ago. While we should certainly give consideration to this matter it would not be advisable to bring in these people at this time, when we have not housing for those of our own kith and kin, and while we have the unemployment situation which now exists. May I go a step farther than he went, and say that I do not think we should have that condition prevailing to the extent that it prevails to-day. It should have been planned against. I could take some time in setting forth an argument to prove that housing is Canada's number one problem. However, I do not want to take the time at this particular moment. The same might be said of unemployment.
I do want to take some issue with the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) in his argument that we should have more agriculturists from Europe. In my opinion agriculture has suffered more than any other activity in Canada from lopsided development. May I say before going further on that point that at the time of confederation the then prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, predicted that Canada would have a population of twenty-five million people during the quarter of a century following confederation. We all know what has happened. Mention has been made of a pamphlet put out quite recently by a government department which indicates that now they are hoping only for a population of some fifteen million at the end of this century, fifty years hence. Certainly these are two very different views, one expressed by the government of the day following confederation; the other by the government of the present day. For the life of me I cannot conceive of a government, with conditions as we now find them throughout the world, putting out a pamphlet of the kind at this time, in view of our present position and prospects. I do not believe there is any other nation whose undeveloped resources and whose developed and potential electrical power compare with those of Canada. Therefore we cannot lightly neglect the matter of immigration. We must give serious thought and planning to it. True, the Sirois commission points out that from the period of 1896 to 1913, under a very vigorous immigration policy by the government of the day, assisted by land companies and railway companies, a tremendous expansion took place in territories of Canada. Settlement took place
Without discrimination. The territories settled grew from about 10,000,000 acres to some
70,000,000 acres in that period. And the settlement was chiefly along agricultural lines.
I have argued many times that immigration should be on a selective basis. I have said that our development has been lopsided. I think in view of that experience we should be very careful and should encourage people who are tradesmen to come to this country now.
I have pointed out the opportunities we have for development here; and in view of what has been said by the hon. member for Spadina may I make a brief reference to another article:	[DOT]
Statistics prove that for the year 1937 the family of the average industrial employee consumed agricultural products to the extent of 85409.35 annually. These figures for to-day would be considerably higher. On this basis, if we had five million heads of families employed m industry there would be an immediate home market in Canada for our present agricultural production.
I am one who thinks that in a country such as Canada, with our vast undeveloped natural resources, our very cheap electrical power and the possibility for further development ot cheap electrical' power, we must have, during the generation following the end of the war just terminated a much greater development ot peace-time industry. This would create employment for all our ex-service men and for every able-bodied Canadian willing to work. It would also necessitate an immigration policy on a selective basis for industrial development.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: What is my hon.
friend reading from?


James Arthur Ross: This is part of a speech I made in 1943, and the article from which these figures were taken appears in the Labour Gazette of that date. To those who think we should not have immigration, I would point out that it is on this selective basis that industry should be developed. It would enhance the opportunities for employment of those young people whom we are putting through our universities. I have raised this point before in connection with estimates. I have pointed out that our scientists and research workers are not paid salaries commensurate with those paid in other countries. While we had the immigration policy that was in force some years ago, our young people, born, brought up and educated in Canada, were leaving us to go to the country to the south of us because they could receive higher remuneration there.
I am satisfied that we can correct this condition on a proper selective basis, and I think it is our duty to be planning immediately instead of having a haphazard immigration policy which will admit everyone who is willing to come into the country. This country
Immigration

must be settled more rapidly than we are settling it to-day. It is most inhuman that we should retain these great undeveloped resources wdthout sharing them with other people, especially when, if we did share them, we would be creating a better standard of employment and a better standard of living for our own kith and kin and those who will become citizens with us in the future. The importance of the resolution will become increasingly apparent as time goes on.


Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: I am very much in favour of the resolution. Before going into my reasons for favouring it I wish to say a word about the speech of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). I do not often disagree with the hon. member. I do not disagree with him now, but it did seem to me that the manner in which he made his remarks certainly left the impression-it left the impression in my mind at any rate-that since we could not have immigration now, it was not of the importance which I for one attach to it, to have now a discussion of the matter with a view to arriving at a satisfactory plan for immigration.
To my way of thinking, now that the war is over and our liberty is secure, now that we can turn our eyes inwards towards the development of this great country, there is not a single thing which is more important to the economy of Canada or to full employment than that we should have a definite policy of mass immigration.
I want to put my remarks in the strongest possible terms, because I read the other day a short pamphlet on immigration which amused me very much. Probably most members received it. It pointed out that the first objectors to immigration into Canada were the Indians, and they objected because they were afraid that one more buck would be killed by the immigrant and there would not be enough meat to go around the few thousand Indians who then inhabited the country. The article goes on to point out that there is no possible opposition to a programme of immigration except from people of the "if" and "but" school. There is no one who will get up and say, "I am opposed to immigration". That would be a ridiculous thing.


Mr. GAUT  HIER@Portneuf: I am opposed to mass immigration.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I must retract what I said. There are people who are prepared to advocate a ridiculous thing. I make no bones about where I stand. I stand for mass immigration,

and I mean by mass, a very great number of people, not less than 200,000 a year over a very long period.
While I entirely agree with the member for Calgary West that it would be impossible to* start immigration in the year 1846, in view of the necessity for repatriating the rest of the troops and getting a housing programme going; while I agree that it would be folly to bring people intq the country if we are to continue the present type of muddling over housing,, instead of getting after the housing problem and providing a housing policy that will take care as well of immigrants who do come into this country, I am perfectly satisfied that the plans must, be laid now.
Let me give an illustration. All hon. members will recall the events in 1942 preceding the Battle of El Alamein. There was criticism of the Churchill government over equipment available for the troops in the preceding Gazala defeat. Mr. Churchill, speaking on that subject, pointed out that the troops which had fought at El Alamein and saved Egypt were not troops sent out by the government after the defeat in the desert. They were troops sent out before that action, with the intention of going ahead to Bengazi and Tripolitania, which was eventually done. Churchill pointed out to the house that you cannot start these great movements and bring them to completion in a moment. You must make your plans long in advance. I believe he mentioned that the time taken to transport a division from Great Britain around the cape to the middle east wTas six months after the executive order to proceed had bqen received, and the plans which the government had to lay for the campaign in the western desert were taken more than six months and sometimes as long as a year before the event about which we read in the papers. Surely the same thing exactly applies to this great problem of immigration. I shall come back to that.
For a moment I wish to turn to the reason why I say we need immigration in large numbers. The hon. member who moved the resolution was a little faint-hearted. He said that immigration would probably create more employment. I am quite satisfied that it is the one way to full employment, to increasing production which can come only from an increase in the man-power of this nation.
To the north of us we have a great new frontier and, thank goodness, we are becoming conscious of it. It is the last frontier in the world. A few days ago we had a debate on the Peace River railway, the Pacific Great Eastern. From what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) said on that occasion

Immigration
it was obvious to me that such a railway cannot be built economically with the present population in that area. There is only one way to have that railway built, and everybody knows that we need it. That is to bring into the area a population which will support the railway. That applies right across the country.
If hon. members would like to know one way to full employment, I believe I can help them. As I came 'east for this session I stopped off in the mining town of Geraldton in northern Ontario. I found it a pleasant little town of twenty-five hundred people. It contained two-storey buildings and every possible modern facility. It might be of passing interest to remark that very few people in the town were over forty years of age. The town exists because of four producing mines in the immediate vicinity. These people are there because of the discovery and development of these mines. I should like to have the reaction of the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to the existence' of this town. I am quite sure that if these 2,500 people were in Toronto, Winnipeg, or one of the other big centres in Canada, these ministers would be much more worried than they are to-day over employment. When I was in Geraldton I was shown pictures of the town as it existed twelve years ago. All that existed was one building. Now there is a town which compares favourably with the majority of the towns in my own province, and is greater in population than many.
The other day I suggested that it is the existence of such towns as Geraldton and others that makes it possible for the industrial and financial developments which we have in our big cities. I am convinced that no other thing makes this possible.
'At the moment there is tremendous activity in the mining area of Red Lake. In the course of years we shall find the same thing happening there as happened in Geraldton. This is an area which has mines in an indefinite state of development. One can get into the area at the moment only by air. I venture to prophesy that in ten years' time there will be in that area many more than 2,500 people earning a good living for themselves and, incidentally, supporting the earnings of many people in our great industrial areas.
I come now to a second reason for an immediate programme of immigration. The reason, of course, is that in the country we should have a stable internal market upon which we may rely. I wish to make two broad
generalizations in regard to this matter. I deliberately make them broad and general because this is an important broad policy which is being advocated and we should not get down to questions as to whether or not we can put two men here or three men there. It is customary to say that in Canada three out of every eight people depend on the export trade. That is advanced as an argument to keep up our export trade. I quite agree with it and often use the .'same figures myself. But at this time I wish to reverse the figures and say that in Canada five out of eight of our people depend for their livelihood on home trade. While we are doing a great deal for the export trade to look after the wants of three of the eight, granting $2 billion in export credits, I believe we should be doing something at the same time to care for the five, the greater number. We are spending $2 billion in export credits in order that people in foreign and empire countries may buy our consumer goods. I am all in favour of that, but we should also be considering the expenditure of considerable sums of money on the development in Canada of the capital goods necessary for a greater production of wealth.
I do not wish to become involved in a discussion on export trade, but at the moment we are worried about bilateralism in trade; we are worried about how we can import from Great Britain the amount of goods to balance the exports we make to her. If we do not reach some sound agreement, or if the Bretton Woods fund does not function in the way we all hope, then we have little chance of getting back any large part of the moneys that we are advancing to France, the Netherlands, the Netherlands Indies, Russia and other countries. We should spend some of our money in the development of our public facilities, which are our capital goods.
It is necessary to bring in people for three main purposes; first, for the full use of our transport system; second, for the full use of our government facilities, and third, and perhaps most important, so that we may spread taxation and thereby reduce the per capita taxation in the country.
No matter how economically we behave- and, goodness knows, this government is not behaving economically-there is no real hope of greatly reducing the per capita taxation unless we increase the number of people who are paying taxes in this country, and increase them substantially indeed. Any hon. member who has travelled across the continent on either of the great railway systems will have a vivid picture of the International Limited
>36
Immigration

line along the north shore of lake Ontario and the railway line across the continent. In the one case it will be found that there is a sizable city of twenty thousand people or so every fifty miles for several hundred miles on that line. If one leaves Vancouver to come east he will find that he has to travel three hundred miles before he comes to Kamloops. I do not dare to brave the criticism of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) by trying to say how many people live there, but I know" it is less than ten thousand. In all those three hundred miles one finds not towns, hardly villages, just settlements of several hundred people clustered around the railway station. That is no way to get freight costs down and lessen the cost of distribution of our produce in the country. If you want to talk about taxation, look at the civil service here in Ottawa. The civil service of Canada and of the provinces is very much greater in numbers, I understand, than the civil service of Great Britain, a country with four times as many people. We have to bear the cost of that civil service, of course, because of our tremendous distances, but there is no reason in the world-


Mr. CLAXTON:: Has the hon. gentleman any figures on which to base that statement? It seems very surprising.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have no figures, and I may be wrong, but for the purposes of my argument I will agree that the numbers are equal.


Humphrey Mitchell: You are wrong even in that.


Gordon Graydon: Have you the figures over there?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have the figures for the labour department, 55,000.	[DOT]


Mr. GRAA DON:: You may be wrong, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am right.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am perfectly happy to leave it in this way, that whatever may be the comparison between our civil service and that of any other country, we have far too many civil servants in comparison with our total population.
I now want to come to another point, which to me is very important. We want a policy of immigration so that we may remove from' the economy of this country the greatest of all tariff barriers, the embargo on human beings.
I put it in that way because I think it is a vivid way of putting it. We have now an 
actual embargo, with very few exceptions, on the import of human beings into this country. I was most amused at the tremendous tempest in a teapot raised last session by some hon. members opposite and by the Winnipeg Free Press over the imposition of a twenty per cent duty on diesel engines. Of all the ridiculous things, Mr. Speaker, to raise such a row about, when the same goyernment at the present time maintains practically an embargo on immigration!
Finally, of course, as other hon. members *have mentioned, the questions of world peace and national defence also come into the picture. I need not go into these matters at length, because both have ben covered by the *hon. member who introduced the resolution and by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). But I believe that to enable the people of Europe to have a decent, economic standard of living and so contribute toward world peace we must relieve them of part of their surplus population. The question of national defence speaks for itself. ,1 feel sure that we shall have introduced into the house this . session estimates for our armed forces based upon the decision that has been made as to their size. No doubt this will be all we can afford, but I believe every hon, member will be forced to agree they will be entirely inadequate for any kind of defence, of the country. The only way we can get the money and the man-power to provide a suitable form' of national defence is by increasing our population.
I now want to come to a point which explains the only difference between myself and the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) who, I see, is back in the house. The Australians say they want twenty million people, and their plan calls for seventy thousand the first year and one hundred thousand a year thereafter. For some months now they have had a committee working in the United Kingdom and on the continent-I believe headed by a cabinet minister-laying their plans and indicating their desire to accept large numbers of immigrants. Australia has given the green light to immigration. What have we done? We have done nothing so far. The other day I deliberately placed a question on the order paper to find that out. I asked how many applications had been received for immigration to Canada, and I was told that no record of applicants existed. I wish to refer to a press clipping in that connection, which appeared in January of this year in the Vancouver Province. In it a returned soldier who was connected with the Maple Leaf, the Canadian army newspaper, is quoted as having said:

Immigration
Canada has done a great job of promotion over there . . . Among Belgians particularly, and among Dutch and French, there is a great desire to come to Canada, The Canadian consular office in Brussels is besieged by citizens who regard Canada as a sort of "promised land."
All servicemen met many people in Europe whom they would consider suitable to come to this country, but how in the world are we to keep those people from going to Australia or some other country unless we at least tell them now, "You have the green light, and as soon as we can make arrangements for you we will bring you in." That is what Australia did. In the pamphlet dealing with the Australian programme it is clearly stated that Australia proposes to look after the reestablishment of her veterans and her housing problem before she brings her scheme into large-scale operation, but the pamphlet also states, "But, nevertheless, all plans are being laid now." That is what I ask from this government; not that they start flooding the country this month with mass immigration, but rather that they indicate to prospective immigrants that they are going to adopt such a policy and, second, that they lay their plans and announce them as soon as possible in order that these prospective immigrants may have a choice between Australia, New Zealand and Canada and may not be forced to go to the antipodes. The government of Australia is also arranging assisted passages for veterans, and giving preference to families with young children, who they think will be the most suitable type of immigrants. I say that is right, because the greatest wealth an immigrant can bring with him is not cash in his pockets but rather his character, education and occupational skill.
When I come to the question of ccupational skill I wish to point out that all the great movements of immigration into this country in past years have been in periods of great prosperity; and in my view that prosperity has been brought about bjj this immigration. Why do people want to come to Canada? It is because here they have a greater hope for freedom than in their native countries, and also because they hope to be able to get capital assets in their new home. Our previous mass immigration movements have relied upon homestead lands and railway lands to give the immigrants that capital, and have relied also upon railway construction. In this new era we still have vast acreages of land available for immigrants, provided that we conduct irrigation schemes, and we still have some railways to develop. However, the public capital facilities most needed now are power projects, irrigation schemes and things of that kind, as well as housing; and
it is my view that the government should coordinate a mass immigration programme with the provision 'of these capital requirements, in order to allow the immigrants to catch on in the country. Comparatively speaking, it would not cost the government a very great sum of money to do that. There can be no doubt that private business would respond to the challenge and would respond to the promise that their markets would be continuously extended in the very near future.
We have in this country a great need for the development of communications and for the development of housing. I have seen an estimate that this country needs at the present time 700,000 housing units. Of course, if we brought in more people, more housing units would be required. As I have mentioned, we need irrigation and water and power supply. I have here a pamphlet of the Canadian construction association stating that the post-war projected works will total over three billion dollars.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the motion before the house deals with immigration.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, if I am straying from the subject matter of the motion. What possible hope have we of expending vast sums like that, made up partly of public money and partly of private money, if we are not going to share the benefits of those works and the costs of those works among an expanding and quickly expanding population?
I close my remarks by reiterating one important point. The decision as to whether mass immigration into this country is to be permitted cannot be left to the time when we propose to allow immigrants to start coming in. A decision must be made, now, for two reasons. One is so that the people whom we propose to attract here will know they have a chance of coming and will not make other arrangements. Second, this policy should be decided and announced now so that people in this country, not only in the government but in private walks of life may know the kind of economy we may expect in the post-war years and be able to make plans and gear their businesses to the type of economy that has been decided upon by the government. I hope that we shall have no "if" or "but" opposers of ijnmigration and that a plan will be announced with all the necessary safeguards within the next few months.
Immigration


Mr. L. PHILIPPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, whether mass immigration is a -wise policy or opposition to mass immigration is ridiculous cannot be decided as lightly as the hon. member (Mr. Merritt) has just done. Peopling a country is not like packing sardines into a tin. The question of immigration and the possibilities of our country providing a decent standard of living for a much larger population has been a matter of great concern to economists who have failed to be in agreement with one another on the matter and who have not tried to dispose of the matter as lightly as has the hon. gentleman.
I think it was quite appropriate that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) should bring in this resolution. I may not be in agreement with all those on this side, but I think within the life of this parliament, if not during the life of this session, this country should determine its immigration policy. It is highly necessary that we know where we stand on the question. People outside Canada should know what to expect from this country.
The immigration laws have been too elastic and, if I may say so, the administration of those laws has been more or less of a hodgepodge during the last thirty years. Fortunately, the branch has been under able ministers, and under every government there have been conscientious civil servants carrying on this work, to whom I am pleased to pay a compliment, both to those who have retired as well as to those who are still in office. But the fact remains that for the last twenty-five or thirty years Canada has had no definite immigration policy and has had also very unsatisfactory immigration laws.
I do not intend to discuss all the details of the problems of immigration, but I should like to touch upon two questions that have been mentioned by some of the previous speakers. First, it has been said that Canada is empty, that Canada needs a much larger .population if we are to dispose of our surpluses or of our production, whether in agricultural fields or in industry. That brings up the argument for mass immigration which has been so ably presented by the hon. member who has just spoken but with whom I cannot agree.
There is another school of thought which contends that we should have an open door for anyone who comes from the British isles and a door kept only partly open for those who do not come from the British isles- I am opposed to that line of thinking and I intend to say a few words about it. There is another school of thought which opposes all immigration, and again I am opposed to that. It

seems that I am against everything. But the fact of the matter is, I think a happy medium could be found in the form of functional immigration, and I shall say a few words about this before I close my remarks.
Dealing with the argument of those who say that this country is empty, I think it would be interesting to note what studies have been made in the past by economists and others who have dealt with this problem. I believe statistics were quoted last session to show that Canada could have a population of 100,000,000 people or at least 80,000,000. I have tried to find1 some information on this matter, and I remembered having been in Hamilton in 1943 when- I heard Professor Dawson of McGill university discussing this question. As I could not remember all his argument I got hold of the text of his lecture. I find that people are far from agreeing with ene another as to our possible maximum population. Those who have looked into this matter seriously put their estimates much lower than those who estimate between 80,000,000 and 100,000,000. I should like to quote from Professor Dawson's work because I think he is much more eminently versed than I and many other hon. members are in this matter. Speaking on May 24, 1943, as president of the Canadian political science association, Professor Dawson said:
In recent years we have heard much about the so-called overpopulated and underpopulated countres. The crudest form in which notions of this kind are presented is in terms of number of people per square mile of land surface. By this device Canada's 2J per square mile seems to demonstrate obvious underpopulation as compared with England's 390, forgetting that this 390 involves resources not only at home but also abroad.
It must be remembered that the population of the British isles does not thrive only upon the exploitation of the land. It exists mainly through trade and commerce. This is one argument that wiU be brought up in a short time when the question of the British loan is before us, whicji loan I will approve. I say that now in order to reassure some of my hon. friends. The argument will be advanced that Britain must import from the outside considerable materials which she in turn manufactures into finished products. British shipping thereby profits by hauling these products, and' considerable capital is also made by the manufacture or treatment of these goods while in the country before they are exported to other countries as finished products. I might use the following as an example: if my hon. friend the member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) succeeds in his negotiations, and I am told that they are about completed, we shall be able to manufacture in Canada some

Immigration
rayon or celanese. Formerly a pulp made out of British Columbia wood was sent to Britain and there converted into rayon or celanese and then brought back to Canada and sold at a considerable profit. It was just a small item in the list of raw materials processed in Great Britain, but from now on, because of the ability and initiative of the hon. member for Beauce, a factory is being organized in the city of Quebec to treat and manufacture the pulp and make the finished product here.
But I am getting away from my first argument, that Britain can support a population much greater than ours because of its highly industrialized areas and by importing goods from all parts of the world and manufacturing them in Britain into finished products, thereby giving work to a very much larger population than its own resources alone would permit.
Those who base Canada's possible population on her area, on the surface of land, fail to take into account the actual conditions within the country. We seem to be on safer ground, when we follow Professor Dawson and take the arable land surface as a base for presenting population densities.
I have often said that instead of having a nice red map of Canada in our school books we should show, in white, what parts of this country are covered with ice and snow and are not occupied and cannot be lived in except perhaps by a musk-ox expedition. Then we should show, in a light colour, perhaps in pink, -I did not say rose-the areas which can be inhabited part of the year, and finally show in a stronger shade those parts where there is arable land.
But to come back to Professor Dawson, if we figure out our population according to the arable land surface, we see that Canada is not so vacant because we have 121 people per square mile of arable land, which is vastly different from the figures that are used by some people who say that we could have a population equal to that of the United States, if not larger. Professor Dawson says:
The arable land index should be supplemented by indices of available minerals, and closely allied items.
And so on. Nevertheless that would not warrant Canada in having such a large population as some people advocate. Professor Dawson says:
In supporting this point of view

The point of view that Canada is an empty country.
-the great mass of Canadians believe that Canada is a country of boundless resources, meagrely developed and offering great opportunities for population expansion, not only by way of natural increase at home but by immigration from abroad. Our school books have built this picture into our minds. Publicists keep inflating this conception throughout our adult years.
I might in passing remind the hon. gentleman who just spoke that with sound economic conditions within the country in past years we would not have needed immigration to have a population as large as Canada has to-day. Canada could have reached her present size of population, given sound economic conditions, without immigration, just by the natural increase in population if it had not suffered from emigration. Without the policy of forced immigration which was started forty or fifty years ago, given good economic conditions, and no emigration, Canada would have been able to reach her present population by natural increase alone, and therefore I gather that the main point that we should have under consideration is that of having a government in this country that will give to Canada as good administration as we have had in the last ten years-that is the political note in this, Mr. Speaker. Let us give the people decent standards of living which will prevent them from drifting over the boundary into the United States. By doing that we shall have, through the natural increase in population, as large a population by 1980 as Canada can sustain with a standard of living comparable to that of the United States.
Economically and geographically Canada and the United States are so vastly different that we cannot compare them simply by surface area. But we must take into account also the climate and those innumerable other factors which economists consider before arriving at their conclusions. It is all very well to speak of mass immigration, but we must also consider the productivity of which the country is capable, what parts of the country are climatically habitable, and what parts of the country we can develop with a chance of providing a decent living for our people. We have to consider so much more than is taken into account by those who simply look at the map and our surface area and say that we need a vast population to provide markets for our products. But first of all, people must have productive and remunerative work. They must have land which they can till or industries where they can be employed. Let us agree that Canada needs a larger population than she now has. But we do not need mass immigration, as some hon. gentlemen on the other side are advocating. Far from it.
Immigration

Professor Dawson in his conclusions is quite conservative. Others are a little more optimistic.. Professor Dawson says:
The shock of disillusionment enters Canadian minds when someone points out that in terms of its population possibilities Canada, like Australia, is a relatively small country and not as big as the United States. The Canadian shield and other non-arable mountainous areas comprise most of Canada. The remaining land surface is roughly 1,000,000 square miles, of which approximately 550,000 square miles is available for potential agricultural settlement, much of it very problematical. Less than one-half of this is now occupied. These latter figures give a clue to Canada's size in terms of potential settlement.
As I said before, one must not simply look at the map, because these other factors have to be taken into consideration. Professor Dawson goes on:
The pressure of the forces of nature against the settlement process in Canada is further indicated by the fact that we have been able to absorb only a portion of those available.
For the past two decades the prairie region has become an area of emigration rather than immigration. There will be some further expansion in farm acreage, but this will take place more slowly and with greater difficulty.
Now, for my friends of the prairies, Professor Dawson has this advice:
This expansion will offer a limited opportunity even for those who live on the prairies.
The development is not illimitable. There are limits to the development, of the prairies, and those who have made a thorough study of the question have realized it. Professor Waines, in his study called "Prairie Population Possibilities," which has been published under the auspices of the Rowell-Sirois commission, has this to say:
The material presented in this review affords no basis for the belief that the presently unexploited resources of the prairie provinces are capable of supporting large additions to the present population. Assuming a continuance of present factors it appears that the prairie provinces will not find it easy in the early future to support their own natural increase, and that any attempt to enhance the population by assisted immigration or land settlement schemes will probably merely accentuate to that degree the present emigration.
That is not my statement; it is from a professor who was considered versed enough or enlightened enough on such questions to be called by the Rowell-Sirois commission to prepare a study for their consideration on that matter.' To go back to Professor Dawson, I might add this statement of his:
In terms of our climate, resources and competitive location, the evidence points against any marked expansion of occupational opportunities.

Which is another thing to be considered.
Indeed we may be pushed to the limit to give-chances for livelihood to our present population as augmented by natural increase.
I have considered this question objectively, as has been my habit through life, to try to-find out the facts. I had no preconceived ideas. I do not get them from any newspaper, whether in my city or province or elsewhere. I just want to try to have an opinion of my own on the question. I have tried to find the arguments on both sides. When I was with the late Mr. Lapointe I was fortunate in that he received a great deal of information on immigration from all kinds of immigration societies, and I retained it for my own use when the files were disposed of. Some expressed very eloquently the belief that we should be the second British empire, the heart of the British empire, and bring all the British isles over here-which might be easy to do geographically but not so practical ethnically. My mind has been much more satisfied on this question by the studies of Professor Dawson, as well as those of Professor Forsey, from which I shall quote in a moment. Frankly, I believe that no hon. member should approach this question with a biased mind. There are some, in my province and elsewhere, who say that we do not want anybody; that we are satisfied to be alone: there are others who say, let us open the doors to our friends on condition they are of our own racial stock. My opinion is different, and I shall give it as I conclude my remarks. But I beg every hon. member, when he considers this question, whether he is now inclined to one side or the other, to open his mind to arguments from the other side, and then to try to find where lies the happy medium for our country. I do not think the solution is to be found in mass immigration; I do not think it is to be found through the closed door. There is bound to be a happy medium.
Professor Dawson is more conservative than anybody else. He has devoted many years, he says, to incidental studies of the question; that is, he has not spent many years in an exclusive study of it but has given quite a lengthy period of time throughout his life to incidental studies of the matter, and he comes to a conclusion which, to me, seems a bit pessimistic, that Canada could, give a standard of living comparable to that of the United States to a population of only eighteen million people. As I say, I think that may be pessimistic, although the man is much better versed in economy than I can be. Professor Forsey is inclined to go to a limit of thirty million; yet he himself admits that

Immigration
that may be stretching the possibilities of . the country. He says that it cannot be foreseen, that it depends on the development of economic trends throughout the world, and on many other factors on which the figures cannot be available, and on problems of which he cannot foresee the solution, but he thinks the most optimistic appraisal could reach that figure. That might be put into the possession of those who, when they go back to Britain, and sit on commissions to investigate conditions in Canada, come to conclusions somewhat like that Australian professor who used to say that we could have on our eastern shores about one hundred million people, or, including the eastern shores of the United States and Canada, about
130,000,000 in that part alone. Such fantastic figures cannot be supported by anybody. The most conservative figure is 18,000,000. The most optimistic implies, as Professor Forsey says, the possibility of extending our arable lands farther to the north, climatic changes, and improvements in the possibilities of inhabiting cold climates, as have been attempted in Siberia and certain parts of Russia. But taking all these things into account, and trying to be fair to those who believe that Canada can maintain a huge population, he concludes that we cannot reach a figure higher than I have mentioned. As Professor Forsey says:
It is not a question of how many human beings can squash into a particular territory, nor even of how much that territory can physically be made to produce, cost what it may, it is a question of costs and markets.
It is not a question of sending people there and saying, we will put them there even if it means a loss; we must have people ,in that part of the country. If we want to have in Canada a sound economy we must make sure that the people who are located anywhere will produce at a' marked advantage to the [DOT]economy of the country in general. Professor Forsey says:
We might, for example, divide the nine million acres of unoccupied "agricultural" land in "the northwest territories into 56,250 farms of 160 acres each, and we might succeed in growing a crop on them. But how much would it *cost? And where could we sell it, and at what price? Of the already occupied farm land in Canada only about 38-5 per cent is actually in use.
That refers to the amount which is occupied. Maybe only half of the potential arable land is occupied, but even where it may be usable from a climatic point of view, much of the land does not lend itself to cultivation with profit, because the geographic conditions are
such that the land cannot be profitably operated. It is not worth while to cultivate it because, says Professor Forsey:
. . . the produce costs too much to grow; because markets are too restricted or too far away, or both; because of European and American tariffs, quotas and embargoes.
It is admitted by everybody that the farmer can no longer live directly off his land except at an exceedingly low standard of living. On the pre-depression standards of western Canada, says Professor Dawson, he had to buy two-thirds of his living necessities. No civilized man could be expected to obtain all his wants out of the products of nature.
These are the aspects of the argument which have convinced me that geographically Canada cannot accept a vast immigration scheme, having regard to its natural growth, as we have seen it in the past. As I said before, had there been no emigration from Canada, and no forced immigration, our population to-day would be exactly what it is. Let us give the country a sound economical administration and we shall retain the people we have without being under the necessity of bringing in
200,000	a year, as someone suggested.
There is another point. Some people say that we should throw our doors open to immigration from the British isles. I have no prejudice at all against anyone from the British isles. I have visited Great Britain quite often and have been well received there, and I have admired the qualities of the British people, not only as empire builders but in many other ways. Although I am of French descent, I do not mind saying that on one occasion a scene I witnessed brought tears to my eyes. I see some of my hon. friends smiling, but that was my reaction to the union jack. I was cruising on the Adriatic and our ship was supposed to enter the Bay of Kotor in Jugoslavia. We were told that we had to be up by 5.30 a.m., and though that was not in keeping with my habits, I did get up. As the sun was dispersing the mists of the morning we saw sombre masses on the water not very far from our cruise ship, and we heard a bugle call. Presently a flag was hoisted and it was the union jack. The whole Mediterranean fleet was at anchor in that vast bay. I was surrounded by Americans, and, though it may sound queer to some hon. gentlemen, I did have a feeling of pride at the thought that I was a British subject.
I take people exactly as I find them for what they are, and when it comes to immigration I consider them from the point of view of what they can give the country. I cannot believe that opening our doors wide to any-
Immigration

one who is British is necessarily the best thing for Canada, and in the few minutes left to me I shall illustrate my view on this point. In my opinion we should consider immigration in relation to certain groups which I shall enumerate.
The first group, comprising people who are
educated and who at the same time have money, will prefer to stay at home. Those who have established businesses and business connections will normally -remain in their own country rather than come to Canada. We might have some people from other European countries who, having suffered as they have done, are willing to take whatever capital they have left and come here and buy land, or establish a business in Canada. Anyone in Britain who is well off will not, however, come to Canada merely for the" sake of helping us.
The second group will comprise those people who have a little capital and who desire to emigrate. Such people will do as they did before the war. They will go to India, if they are still welcome there, or they will go to Burma, where cheap labour costs have in the past produced substantial profits. Those people, having a little money, will invest it where it will bring them the greatest financial returns and they will not come here simply to increase the population of Canada or to provide more profits here. People in the British isles who have capital and who are willing to come could be the preferred ones; I grant even that to you, but we should not exclude people from other countries who also have capital and who are willing to invest it here. But there should be no hide-and-seek capital as there was at one time to circumvent our immigration laws. At that time someone would deposit $1,000 in a bank in Canada in the name of So-and-so, some prospective immigrant, who would come into the country, and after that capital had remained in the bank for a few months, it was transferred back to the society overseas and deposited again in the name of someone else, another immigrant, to enable that person to come into the country. That applied, of course, to nomBritish because the same condition was not demanded of people from the British isles. But that practice was carried on extensively.
I would be willing to give priority but not exclusivity to people from the British isles who wish to bring in their capital and settle here, but I do not believe that many would come. I believe that they would rather stay at home. I do not blame them; they have a beautiful country and naturally they prefer to stay there.

In the third group there are those people who have had a fairly good education but who are not technicians or specialists. They are not people who have business connections. They prefer England, but they are willing to make sacrifices'in order to go to some other country, provided that conditions are acceptable. I met one such person on the train not long ago. He said to me, "You should hold out some inducement to us. We are somebody and we should be sure of having jobs when we come here, instead of being left at the caprice, at the mercy of someone in Canada. We are somebody, and the moment we come in we should be given special treatment."
Well, in my opinion they are no better than the people our universities turn out from Halifax to Vancouver. They are not specialists, but ordinary, well-educated people, and we have many such people in Canada who are quite capable of filling the jobs that are available. We should not throw our doors open to those people. They are no better than our people because they come from the British isles. I have said to such people, "The Canadian Pacific Railway company, the Canadian National and many large corporations, and even -the civil service of Canada have given you enough preference in the past, but that should not be extended indefinitely except in the case of experts and technicians."
We have to develop the countiy, but at the same, time we must see that our people have a decent standard of living. The people we need are experts and technicians, not simply clerks. Those we can find in our own schools. This person with whom I had the conversation on the train also said to me, "In order to induce us to face the rigours of your climate and to adapt ourselves to your way of life you should give us some special consideration." I do not agree with this. In Ontario, in Quebec and in the west there are many young men from our schools who are quite capable of managing our companies or of being clerks. We do not need to get such people from outside.
The fourth group comprises skilled labourers of whom there is a scarcity. We have a scarcity of certain technicians. I am in favour of bringing in such people either from the British isles or from the continent, because we need leather chemists, glass experts, textile experts and so on. We should open our doors to them without too many restrictions. It would be for the good of the country.
I would not close the door to anyone who could be useful and help to make Canada a

Immigration
greater country. Far from it. This group of people, whether from the British isles or from the continent, should be allowed to come in.
I do not mind having them come from the British isles if they qualify.
The fifth group is that of unskilled labourers,' unemployed persons or persons who were on the dole before they went into the army in England. They are not adaptable to Canada and they are not the people we need-at any rate until our conditions are sufficiently stabilized and we know that we can go through the after-war period without a depression and without any lowering of our productive capacity. We must make sure that we can provide work for our own population and maintain our own standard of living. If this is not assured, we must not extend our facilities to others.
I am opposed to mass immigration of this type of people. Let me illustrate this with an incident that was related to me by a former minister of the crown who is now sitting on a commission. He told me he had a large farm in the west. At the time we had opened our doors to unemployed miners from Wales or elsewhere who had not worked for a long time. They came on his farm and he said to me: "We were asking our people to get up early and work all day, to eat as much as they could. We had wagons on the farm with beans and everything they wanted to eat. They could eat ten times a day, but they had to work from sunup to sundown." He said, "After a day or two these people said, 'What about union hours?'" They did not want to work from sunup to sundown. They were not used to 'that. They were fed up with the condition and he was fed up with them, and most of these people drifted back to Winnipeg and other cities, and finally clogged the labour market. Some of them were not much of an asset to the country and many of them had to be repatriated overseas. I do not think that type of people can be of much use to Canada at the moment. I am still amazed if that is what is proposed by some people.
We have now come to the point where conclusions should be arrived at. If Canada had functional immigration, that is immigration of people who would1 become an asset to the country, it would be all to the good. We cannot foresee how future generations may turn out. They may turn out to be bad citizens, but we can at least make sure that the first generation which comes in will be useful.
I would welcome to Canada, as I indicated in my remarks, first the people with capital who wish to buy land or to establish a business
in Canada. We need the type of people who can provide capital, and they should be welcomed regardless of the part of the world from which they eome. The second class is specialists. We need them. There the advice of experts in economy and in the labour movement could be obtained. We should determine that and have quotas. Specialists, technicians, scientists, physicians, engineers and highly-trained people should be welcomed to Canada. We have need for them in many fields of endeavour. Skilled labourers may be a great asset to the country.
I would limit the people who come in just because they have a relative in the country. At the moment I believe the law is that wives and unmarried children under eighteen years of age joining family heads already established in Canada may be admitted. That is all right, and I agree with it, but I think in the past the policy has been to extend it to the seventh cousin on both sides. That permits a lot of people to come in because one man is already in Canada. Many of these people may not be of the same high standard as the one who has already arrived in Canada.
I looked up the regulations as they existed a few years ago and they would appear to be all right. It mentioned wives and unmarried children, father and mother. I would even include brothers and sisters if they can qualify. They should be given preferred treatment, but it should1 not extend to the seventh cousin as has been done in the past.
Formerly farmers bringing capital sufficient to establish them on the land were admitted, but we should demand guarantees from these people. There should not be a transfer of money from one person to another and the land held nominally in the name of So-and-so to permit them to get in, and then the land sold within three months with the result that Joe ends up in Winnipeg, Montreal or some other city and the land passes to the association and another man enters on that land. We must have some security to make sure that the man who comes to settle on the land intends to settle on the land and does not w>ant to enter another business in Montreal, Vancouver or Winnipeg.
I am against both extremes in this matter, whether they come from my province or my party or elsewhere, or from any particular group which says, "let us not open the door; let us keep it closed; it is dangerous_ to Canada." We need new people in limited number provided that they can be useful. I am against mass immigration of people without taking into consideration the, service that they may render to the country. I am in favour of some immigration, not because
Immigration

they will eat our food, but because they can produce something without taking the place of some of our workers, because they can occupy land which can be cultivated; not just to bring them in for the sake of packing sardines in a tin. Let us allow these people to come in who may be an asset to Canada, and let us keep the others out whatever their racial origin may be.
I think this was an opportune time for the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) to bring this problem to the attention of the government and of the house. We must have the courage to face this matter within the life of this parliament. I am not in a hurry as other hon. members may be and say that it must be done this year. Because of the opinions I have expressed I do not believe there is any hurry about it. Within a reasonable time we must have the courage to face the situation and to formulate an immigration policy so that the population may know where it stands as far as the expansion of the country is concerned and that people in other lands may know what they can expect from us. This problem should be tackled within a reasonable tirpe. Let us do it within the life of this parliament.


Mr. L. W. SKEY (Trinity):: I wish to take about two or three minutes of the time of thp house to discuss this question. In my six months in the House of Commons I have already spoken three times on this subject.
I feel that there has been enough said to-day and on other occasions thoroughly to convince the members of the house that immigration is one of Canada's most pressing problems at the present time. I can see only three possible solutions for the government to take. The first is to do nothing as has been done over the past few years. The second is to announce a quota which will permit people from other countries to come to Canada., I say that becausa lack of knowledge of what the government intends to do is causing real hardship in the country, read hardship amongst those Canadians who are interested in bringing their relatives and loved ones here. As I see it, the third solution is immediately to set up a committee on this problem, study the various aspects of it and bring down a report this session, if possible.
I was one of those who curtailed his remarks last session because I understood that a committee had' been promised and would be set up this session. So far, we have had no announcement from the minister on this subject. In fairness to hon. members, who like me, understood that there would be a committee this session, the government should make some announcement on this subject.


Thomas Langton Church: When we review the history of immigration before, during and after the war as set out in the splendid bluebook of the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) it will be found that something should be done first of all for Great Britain. What Great Britain' suffered in the war and is suffering' to-day is something that should be considered, particularly with regard to those who wish to come to this country. I urge on the government that we should have a forward, courageous immigration policy adapted to Canada's circumstances. I do not mean by this that we should interfere with the employment of our own people who have been overseas, and others, but the time has come for a forward policy on immigration to let the empire know what our policy is for the three main problems of empire trade, defence and immigration within the empire, especially the latter.
After all the British people have suffered, surely we should take some steps along the lines taken by New Zealand and Australia on assisted passages for them and come at once to some agreement with them in connection with immigration adapted to our circumstances. I believe some consideration should also be given to some of those French soldiers who were on the side of the allies during the war. However, until such time as conditions improve, I believe immigration from the continent of Europe should be largely restricted for a short period of time, though in my opinion we should have in the first primary class assisted passages and other forms of assisted immigration from the British isles, though not to interfere with absorption in employment for our own soldiers and citizens.
I believe those are the three cardinal principles that should be laid down. I do not want to see the unrestricted emigration we had after the last war and between the two wars, when nearly 1,250,000 unemployed people left Canada for the United States because they could not find employment here. Those figures were given in a return tabled in the house, and they included many thousands of Canadian soldiers who had fought for their country at the hazard of their lives. Where did they go? They went mainly to the United States, owing to conditions here resulting from the trade and other policies of the government.
In conclusion, I urge upon the minister that we should decide something right away This is a very important question. First comes migration within the empire. What is

Labour Conditions
to be done to help those who assisted us during the war? I believe British immigration should come first; then migration within the empire; in the next place we have a large number coming from the United States who must be considered. Then the continent of Europe, with priority for our allies there, must be considered. In my opinion we should not bring refugees here from Europe only to become a charge on the municipalities, as happened after the last war. Let us carefully consider this matter and send them aid. I was the head of a municipality at that time, and I can tell you that refugees were brought from all parts of the world, with the result that some of them became a charge on the taxpayers of our cities and towns and on real estate. I have great sympathy for the refugees and their suffering, but I believe there are conditions within our own empire which should receive prior consideration. So that I think the time has come when the government should not be afraid to tell the people of Canada and the people of the empire what their policy is, and adopt a forward policy like those of Australia and New Zealand, for if we do not come to some agreement in connection with immigration all these people will go to Australia and New Zealand. Many people in Britain desiring to come to Canada are key men who are badly needed in various skilled, industries in this dominion. I am sure many industries will be very glad to get people of this kind, many of whom they cannot get in this country, and so aid reconversion and production. Therefore I urge upon the minister that some definite action should be taken almost immediately, and a government plan announced at once, so that the house and the country may know what it is.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this resolution may I say that the discussion to-day has been particularly gratifying to me because I believe I was the first to raise the question of our immigration policy in this parliament. No doubt this matter has been discussed on previous occasions, but I brought it up in the house last September, and again a little later on. The expressions of opinion we have heard from all sides to-day have been very helpful. Whatever may be the ultimate fate of the resolution, I believe the discussion will show that all parties in this house are interested in this most important question, and it will give the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) an opportunity to place before the house his opinions and whatever plans may be ready.
I believe the question of immigration can be divided into two main categories. First there is the long-range policy, which has been particularly discussed up to the present, and then the immediate policy.
On motion of Mr. Zaplitny the debate was adjourned.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Charles H. Larose, Esquire _ Acting Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Administrator desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the deputy of His Excellency the Administrator had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name royal assent to the following bills:
Bill No. 11, an act for granting to Hie Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1947.
Bill No. 12, an act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1946.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
Thursday, April 4, 1946.