1947-05-05

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) inquired about the action of the parliaments of the other units of the commonwealth with respect to article 41 of the charter of the united nations. Our files contained the information with respect to the United Kingdom and New Zealand, but did not contain anything definite with respect to the other units of the commonwealth. Through our high commissioners we have since ascertained exactly what the position is.
The House of Commons of the United Kingdom approved the charter of the united nations by resolution of August 23, 1945. The United Kingdom deposited its ratification on October 20, 1945. The parliament of the United Kingdom enacted the United Nations Act, 1946, which was assented to on April 15, 1946, and which contains provisions similar to those contained in our Bill No. 132, which is now before parliament.
Mr. GRAYDON:: That is, relating to article 41?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Relating to article 41, with the exception that there is no limitation in the United Kingdom Act upon the penalties which can be imposed' for violating any regulation made under the powers delegated to the government of the United Kingdom.
The parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia has not enacted special legislation with respect to article 41 of the charter. It did, however, by act of parliament, approve the charter.
New Zealand deposited its instrument of ratification on September 19, 1945. The General Assembly of New Zealand in parliament assembled on September 16, 1946, enacted the
United Nations Act, 1946, which empowers the government to make regulations in the manner provided1 for in our Bill No. 132. There is a limitation on the penalties which are fixed by the statute; and they are limited to twelve months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds for an individual or a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds in the case of a company.
In South Africa, although the instrument of ratification was deposited on November 7, 1945, there has not been any legislation with respect to article 41.
Mr. GRAYDON; Will the military staff committee's report to the security council with respect to an international police force have any effect on the present disposition to press this legislation at the present session?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I do not think it
will. As the hon. member knows, there are three procedures fixed for settling international disputes:	(1) attempted conciliation; (2)
measures under section 41 which involve sanctions other than military sanctions, and (3) recourse to military sanctions prescribed by the security council. This has to do with only the second stage of proceedings for settling disputes; and it was our feeling that although there might not be any immediate prospect of having to use these powers, we did not want to be in the position where any delay whatsoever in respect to the setting up of effective machinery of the united nations could1 be. attributed to us.



PETITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata): Mr. Speaker, will you kindly give your ruling concerning the. petitions which were submitted to the house the other day?
Mr. SPEAKER:: On Friday last I said to the hon. member for Temiscouata, as reported at pages 2694 and 2695 of Hansard:
May I point out to the house that I have already refused some petitions because they were not prepared in accordance with the rules of the house. I should not like to put before the house the motion to accept the petition presented by the hon. member for Temiscouata before having had the opportunity of seeing it. I have noted the remarks made by the hon. member, and he may be assured that due consideration will be given to them.
I have examined the petition of the hon. member, and have prepared the following statement:
Polish Veterans

The house is not seized of a petition addressed to the members without mentioning the words "in parliament assembled". In that case a motion has to be made in order to bring it to the attention of the house. When petitions are not properly addressed, the clerk of petitions reports that they cannot be received. They may then be referred to the standing committee on standing orders which has power to report to the house whether or not they should be accepted.
The general allegations of the petition are concluded by what is called the "prayer", that is, the request in which the particular object of the petitioner is expressed. The words "and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray" are not essential. "May" says that those words are "generally added" but they are not necessary; and petitions without them are valid.
I suggest to the hon. member, therefore, that he present a motion that this petition be referred for consideration to the proper committee, which would be the standing committee on standing orders.


Mr. POULIOT:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I therefore move:
That petition presented by the electors of the parishes of Notre Dame des Sept Douleurs, Ste. Rita, St. Paul de la Croix, St. Cyprien, St. Emile d'Auclair and St. Jean-Baptiste de l'lsle Verte be referred to the committee on standing orders.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria) moved:: That the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on Friday, May 2, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: On Friday last the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) asked whether the government of Sweden had imposed an import licensing system against our canned lobsters. I am informed after conversations with the Swedish legation that a temporary import licence procedure has been imposed in Sweden. The present shortage of United

States and Canadian dollars permits them to import only essential goods. Canadian canned lobster is in good demand in Sweden, however, and if conditions improve sufficiently, imports of canned lobster may be permitted into Sweden later in the year.
I am unable to indicate what effect this present situation may have on lobster prices.



POLISH VETERANS


[Stage Direction]
"standard"
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: My attention has been called to an article appearing in the Montreal Standard of May 3 in which it is stated that a number of Polish veterans, who were brought from Italy last fall to work on Canadian farms, had served with the nazis. The heading of the article is entirely misleading. The impression which might be drawn from the heading and from a reading of this article is that the men referred to were men who were nazi sympathizers and that the Canadian selection mission had accepted these men for entry to Canada under pressure from the heads of the Polish corps. I wish to correct any such impression and to say that it is entirely unfounded.
The Canadian selection mission was initially instructed by the government that they were not to consider applications from any members of the Polish armed forces who had served with the German forces or behind the German front with the German labour corps during the period of the war. However, representations were made by the Polish military authorities pointing out that among those Polish veterans who desired to come to Canada there were a number who had been forcibly conscripted by the Germans and enrolled either in the German armed forces or in the German labour corps and who had deserted at the first opportunity and made their way into allied lines to join the Polish corps. It was represented that men in this category who had risked their lives to desert for the express purpose of joining the Polish corps and had subsequently enrolled in and had actually fought with the Polish corps against the axis powers prior to V-E day would be unfairly discriminated against if they were refused consideration for admission to Canada along with other Polish veterans. These representations were transmitted to the government and it was agreed that Polish veterans in this category would be con-

Questions
sidered eligible for selection purposes along with other Polish veterans. To this extent and to this extent only the original instructions to the mission were varied. All applicants for entry to Canada in this category were nevertheless screened by the security representatives on the mission in the same way as every other applicant. The screening included not only verbal interrogations but also a check of the military and intelligence records relating to them.
I wish to put this on the record in justice to the men themselves and to refute any suggestion that we have permitted any person to come to Canada in this group of Polish veterans who has nazi sympathies. This is not the case and in fact, as the statement shows, every precaution was taken to eliminate the possibility of inclusion of any such persons in the group selected for entry.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Will the minister permit a supplementary question?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Has there been any trouble or difficulty in connection with any of these men? Is it true that in some cases deportation proceedings are under consideration?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can be very frank with my hon. friend. There have been complaints in the opposite direction in regard to being nazi sympathizers. There are in this country a number of people who feel that anyone who does not agree with them is a nazi, and that goes for every member of this House of Commons.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: What do you mean by that?


Humphrey Mitchell: They call you that, too, if you bother to take notice of them. However, I may say that consideration is being given to sending two of these Polish veterans back to Great Britain.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. DAVID CROLL (Spadina-for Mr. Sinclair, Ontario) moved the first reading of Bill No. 178 (from the senate) respecting certain patents owned by Toronto Type Foundry Company Limited.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


James Horace King: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Gordon Graydon: You do not explain a senate bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BEAUHARNOIS LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER GRANT OF WATER DIVERSION FROM ST. LAWRENCE RIVER

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport) moved the first reading of Bill No. 179 (from the senate) respecting the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company.
Mr. CHURCH:: Why is this a government bill?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. QUESTIONS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



FEED GRAINS

Mr. WINTERS:: 1.	Did the increases in the price of No. 1 feed barley and No. 1 feed oats as announced by the Minister of Agriculture in his statement in the House of Commons on 17th March, 1947, increase the price of these grains in Nova Scotia, and, if so, by how much?
2.	Did the above-mentioned increases in the price of barley and oats increase the cost to Nova Scotian farmers of feeds involving these grains?


Mr. GARDINER:: I have discussed this question with the hon. member and we agreed that in its present form it will not get the information he requires. I therefore ask that it be dropped, in order that it may be reworded.
Question dropped.



MOUNTED POLICE-SALARIES, WORKING CONDITIONS, ETC.

Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Is there any machinery that provides for discussion between R.C.M.P. and its constables with reference to salaries, working conditions, etc., on a labour-management basis? If so, what is the nature thereof?
2.	Does the R.C.M.P. maintain service files concerning members of the force?
3.	If so, is this practice followed in the case of all constables or is it limited in any way? If limited, what are the limitations?
4.	Are such service files available to the constable concerned and is the constable given any indication of the notations entered on his file?
5.	Are R.C.M.P. constables sometimes transferred, as a result of notations made in their service files, to stations such as Esquimalt, Regina or "A" division, Ottawa?
Questions

6.	If so, are such transfers made because of unfavourable reports and is the constable concerned advised of the nature of such reports?
7.	What are the ranks of members of the force who normally make such reports?
8.	When a constable is charged with an offence under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, is he permitted to have a lawyer defend him at his trial and before whom is such a trial held?
9.	Have any constables of "A" division, Ottawa, been assigned to other duties than guarding public buildings, etc., at any time since January 1, 1940? If so, what is the nature of such duties?
10.	Since January 1, 1940, have -any first-class constables been re-engaged as second or third class constables? If so, how many?
11.	Is there any reduction in pay as a result of such re-engagement? If so, how much?
12.	Are such constables advised of the reasons for such reduction by re-engagement and is there any relationship between such reduction by re-engagement and the service files referred to in question two?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes. Through the officers and staff of the personnel section, and all inspecting officers.
2.	Yes.
3.	The practice is followed for all members of the force.
4.	No, with the exception of information referred to in No. 6.
5.	No.
6.	Members of the force are advised of all adverse reports.
7.	Commissioned officers.
8.	Legal counsel is not authorized, but a constable may request an officer or other member to assist in- his defence. Charges under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act are heard before a commissioned officer.
9.	Constables of "A" division are available for all duties performed by the force.
10.	Yes, as their services were unsatisfactory. The number since January 1, 1940, is seven.
11.	Yes, from 25 cents to 75 cents per diem, according to rank.
12.	Yes, in all cases. There may, or may not, be any such relationship.



EXPORTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr. CAOUETTE:: 1.	Have any -touring ears been shipped from Canada since June, 1946?
2.	If so (a) how many of such cars were shipped in each month up to the present; (b) to what countries; (e) of what make and in what quantity for each make?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) and (b) See statement below; (c) information not available.
Statement showing number of passenger cars exported from Canada during each month from
June 1946 to March 1947
* Country	June 1946	July 1946	Aug. 1946	Sept. 1946	Oct. 1946	Nov. 1946	Dec. 1946	Jan. 1947	Feb. 1947	Mar. 1947No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.	No.United Kingdom	4	1	5	3	8	14	5	4	3	27British East Africa	20	10	2	17	1	19	48	37	32	17British South Africa	529	914	385	671	162	665	314	633	504	1,526Southern Rhodesia	14	22	23	19	1	36	15	13	26	' 8Nigeria	7	9	5	24	52	17	41	11	6	1British India	204	264	268	156	2	231	98	398	409	652Burma	54	6Ceylon	30	24	24	24	Straits Settlements	8	95	81	52	56	20	14	26	31	118Bermuda	72	Barbados	8	9	26	5	6	4	3	28	2	4Jamaica	81	23	25	5	28	85	Trinidad	9	21	24	13	27	18	12	45	27	5British West Indies, other	12	10	33	11	10	28	22	32	10	11Hong Kong	18	21	12	7	7	1	11	5	1	7Newfoundland	5	38	86	5	1	2	1	6	2	4Malta	2	3	2	Australia	2,086	3,033	3,563	1,897	73	828	1,477	1,541	1,696	2,180New Zealand	5	493	37	289	48	317	294	422	202	282Argentina	46	Colombia	8	24	13	4	1	1	Netherlands East Indies	40	100	36	1	117	276	United States	5	2	2	4	1	3	5	4	4	2Other countries	20	29	34	41	25	35	55	60	71	71Totals	2,992	5,118	4,725	3,303	488	2,267	2,714	3,733	3,197	5,102

Questions



AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND BUTTER

Mr. DROPE:: 1.	How much Australian and New Zealand butter was brought into Canada this year?
2.	What was the cost laid down per pound?
3.	How much of this butter is still in the hands of the government agencies?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	4,984,448 pounds.
2.	Invoice value f.o.b. shipping point $1,873,710.67. Transportation costs are not complete at this date.
3.	38,808 pounds.



POSTAL SERVICE-REVENUE-POSTAGE RATES

Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	What was the surplus revenue of the post office department during the years 1937 to 1946, inclusive?
2.	What are the present postal rates in Canada and United States on (a) post cards; (b) letters; (e) air mail letters?
3.	What are the present air mail rates from Canada and United States to Great Britain on (a) letters, stating rate per ounce; (b) parcels, stating rate per pound?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: 1.
Fiscal Year	Surplus	Deficit
1936-37	$ 3,735,976.73	
1937-38	3,249,356.18	
1938-39		1167,961.80
1939-40	3,235.19	
1940-41	1,683,692.69	
1941-42	4,492,002.79	
1942-43	4,126,775.11	
1943-44	12,585,910.72	
1944-45	11,442,534.82	
1945-46 2.	10,905,913.40	
Canada
(a)	3 cents.
(b)	General rate-4 cents first ounce, 2c each additional ounce.
For local delivery-3 cents first ounce, lc each additional ounce.
(c)	7 cents first ounce, 5 cents each additional ounce.
United States
(a)	1 cent.
(b)	General rate-3 cents each ounce.
For local delivery at other than letter carrier
offices-1 cent each ounce.
(c)	5 cents each ounce.
3.	(a) From Canada-15 cents each i ounce. Air letters-10 cents each.
From United States-15 cents each i ounce, Air letters-10 cents each.
(b) There is no air parcel post service to Great Britain from either Canada or the
United States but parcels may be forwarded via air mail from either country if prepaid at the regular air mail letter rate.



PRODUCTION OP FURNITURE, ELECTRICAL APPARATUS AND FARM MACHINERY

Mr. McKAY:: 1.	What was the value of (a) furniture; (b) electrical apparatus; (c) farm machinery, produced in Canada during the years 1945 and 1946?
2.	What were the exports from Canada of each of the above named groups of commodities for each of the years 1945 and 1946?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Production	1945(a)	Furniture	$ 59,856,000
(preliminary)
('b) Electrical
apparatus	 230,531,000
(c) Farm machinery 38,701,000
2.	Exports
(a)	Furniture of
wood	$ 462,342 $ 1,024,831
Furniture of metal 264,802	463,748
(b)	Electrical
apparatus ... 60,956,632	20,939,342
(c)	Farm machinery.. 20,196,085 28,661,562



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-VETERANS

Mr. McKAY:: 1. How many veterans were in receipt of (a) out of work benefits; (b) unemployment insurance in the months of (i) January; (ii) February; (iii) March, 1947?


Humphrey Mitchell: The following veterans received D.V.A. and U.I.C. benefits.
Month	(a) D.V.A.	(b) U.I.C.(i) January, 1947	... 32,235	3,930(ii) February, 1947	... 30,171	5,498(iii) March, 1947	... 26,318	5,542



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-&quot;FILLERS&quot;

Mr. FULTON:: 1.	Who writes the "fillers" which are circulated to newspapers by the National Film Board?
2.	Is the position of writer of "fillers" a paid position ?
3.	If it is a duty involving only part of the time of an official or officials of the department engaged on other publicity work, what percentage of his or their time is so employed?
4.	What salary or salaries are paid to the writers of "fillers"?
5.	What qualifications for this work have the writers ?
6.	What is the total cost of composing, printing and distributing these "fillers" for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1947, including salaries of writers?
Not
yet
available
Questions


Mr. McCANN:: '
1.	Mr. Paul Gormley and Mr. Francois Morrisset.
2.	Yes.
3.	One-half hour each per month or one-third of one per cent.
4.	Mr. Gormley, $270; Mr. Morrisset, $177.
5.	Mr. Gormley: 14 years' newspaper experience and 3i years as a government information officer.
Mr. Morrisset: B.A.; University of Ottawa, 1J years as a government information officer.
6.	Approximately $65.



AIR SERVICE BETWEEN PERU AND CANADA

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has a licence been granted to Peruvian International Airways to operate an international air passenger and freight service between the republic of Peru and Canada?
2.	If not, was an application made by said company to the Canadian government for permits to operate in Canada, and, if so, what is the present position of the matter and what disposition of such application has been made?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	No.
2.	No. In February, 1947, the Peruvian government approached the Canadian government concerning the initiation of negotiations leading to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement. They also enquired as to the possibility of securing a provisional permit for Peruvian International Airways pending the signature of such an agreement. They were informed that although the Canadian government was prepared to commence negotiations it is not our practice to grant provisional permits of this kind, but that until the proposed agreement is signed, any requests for the authorization of occasional flights into Canada could be made direct to the air transport board.
These matters are now under consideration by the Peruvian authorities.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. RAYMOND (Beauhamois-Laprairie):: 1.	Did the war assets corporation sell any assets to the city of Salaberry of Valleyfield in 1944, 1945, 1946, and 1947?
2.	If so (a) what were such assets; (b) what was the quantity of each kind in each year; (c) what was the selling price of each of such assets;
(d)	when and where was each delivery made;
(e)	on what date were such assets paid for?


Mr. McILRAITH:: Return tabled.


EMPLOYMENT SERVICE-MARITIME REGION
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	How many employees have been released from the national employment service in the maritime region from January 1 to March 31, 1947?
2.	Of these, how many were (a) released in each office; (b) (i) males; (ii) females; (c) those with overseas service?
3.	How many of the above released persons have since found employment through the offices of the national selective service?
4.	What number were placed through each office in the following order-males, females and those with overseas service?
5.	Of the total number released, how many held executive positions?


GRAIN SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL
Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	What was the value of imports which entered Canada via Port Churchill during 1946?
2.	How much wheat was stored at Port Churchill as at April 1, 1947?
3.	What ships have been chartered to carry wheat from the port to Europe during 1947?
4.	Have Canadian trade commissioners or other federal employees taken any steps during the past year, to secure incoming cargoes for the port?
5.	How much wheat is it estimated will be shipped from the port during 1947?


SUGAR BEETS-TONNAGE PURCHASED AND REFINED
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Does the government (a) check or supervise weighing of sugar beets; (b) cheek total tonnage purchased from producers with total tonnage refined?
2.	Does the government make any check to determine if total tonnage of sugar refined is same as paid producers who contract with refiners for beets on sugar content plus tonnage basis? If so, what years was checking done?


WAR ASSETS-FLEET AIRCRAFT
Mr. CASTLEDEN:: 1.	How many serviceable Fleet aircraft have passed through war assets corporation to date?
2.	To whom were they sold?
3.	What price was received for each?
4.	What was the average cost of these aircraft to the Canadian government?


FEMALE TEXTILE WORKERS-BEAUCE, QUE.
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What are the prevailing wage rates for women textile workers in Beauce, Quebec?
2.	What housing accommodation, if any, is being provided for the 100 women workers now being recruited in Europe for the Dionne Spinning Mill Company under P.C. 1193?


SASKATCHEWAN RIVER-BRIDGES
Mr. BENTLEY:: 1. What was the total cost of the bridge across the North Saskatchewan river at Borden, Saskatchewan?

Inquiries of the Ministry
2.	What was the total cost of bridging the South Saskatchewan river at Outlook, Saskatchewan?
3.	What was the total cost of building the last bridge across the South Saskatchewan river in the city of Saskatoon?
4.	Did the dominion government pay any of the costs of building any or all of these bridges? If so, to what extent did the dominion participate in each case?
5.	Has the dominion government cpntributed to the building of any other bridges in Canada since 1910? If so, what was the total cost in each case and to what extent did the dominion government contribute in each case, and in what year or years were such bridges built?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. HERRIDGE:: For a copy of all agreements, correspondence, letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports and other documents, exchanged from January 1, 1940 to December 31, 1946. between the government of Canada or any department or officer thereof and any officer, agent or representative of West Kootenay Power and Light Co. Ltd., or Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Ltd., or of either of them or of any other corporation concerned with, interested in or participating in the construction of a dam and power plant on the Kootenay river near Brilliant, British Columbia, together with statements, accounts and reports showing the total cost of this project and the amount of accelerated depreciation allowed to any one or all of the above corporations in connection with their respective income taxes or excess profits taxes in respect of the above-mentioned power project.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Exchequer Court Act to authorize the payment of a salary to the registrar of the court not exceeding six thousand five hundred dollars as the governor in council may fix.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the proposed resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On Friday I sought permission to ask of the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) three questions, aiming to learn from the minister, in the first place, whether or not Ontario farmers are signing 1947 contracts to produce sugar beets for the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company in sufficient numbers to enable that company to run both of its factories during 1947; and, in the second place, whether or not the government realized that inability to run the Wallaceburg factory in 1947 would lose for Canada 50 million pounds of sugar, or about five pounds of sugar for every person in Canada.
Your Honour, considering the length of the questions, suggested that I put them on the order paper. To Your Honour's ruling I freely bow. Nevertheless there is attached to this matter of the Ontario beet sugar industry in 1947 such a degree of importance and immediate urgency that I conceive it to be my duty to move the adjournment of the house to discuss this matter. Having in mind, however, the fact that the house is anxious to make progress today with various pressing matters, and has therefore specially decided upon the programme for this afternoon, I wonder if it would not be fitting that I should rather ask the Minister of Finance if he will agree that I should present to him now certain questions concerning the progress of the Ontario beet sugar industry. Will the minister so agree?


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance):: The hon. member has sent me notice of the questions he intended to ask, but I have no objection to his putting them. I shall take them as notice and try to give him an answer tomorrow if possible.


John Horne Blackmore: The questions I desire to ask are these.
First, how many acres of sugar beet contracts had been signed for the company by noon of May 5?
Second, what steps does the government contemplate to enable Ontario beet growers to protect their labour supply from being attracted from them by tobacco growers as was done in 1946, and,
Third, has the government considered how adversely Canada's failure to produce beet sugar to her plant capacity in 1947 might affect the willingness of the United States to grant Canada sugar from the international pool in the years 1947 and 1948?
Inquiries oj the Ministry



INCREASED DOMESTIC PRICES ON WEST COAST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. As the April 30 lumber price increases on the domestic market appear to compensate British Columbia coastal operators several times over for losses through reduced export quotas, will the minister state what other factors, beyond compensation to the lumber companies, were taken into consideration in increasing domestic prices on the west coast by more than forty per cent?


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: Several factors were taken into consideration. The first, as my hon. friend has mentioned, was the desire to obtain a greater proportion of the British Columbia cut for domestic use. Another factor was that prices for west coast lumber have not been changed for some eighteen months. In the meantime there has been a sharp increase in cost, in part through increased wages. Third, account must be taken of the fact that past prices for lumber are not only far below prices of any other lumber in Canada, but are far below the cost of production; and that fact is preventing the procurement of certain types of lumber, such as flooring and other high grades, which the mills will not produce at the old prices. The adjustment leaves the price in no event any more than sixty per cent of the price that is being obtained for lumber for export. The adjustment brings the price of British Columbia lumber about in line with prices in other parts of Canada; and it will, I think, mean a much better distribution of western lumber throughout Canada, which is highly desirable, as the shortage of heavy timber from British Columbia is having a serious effect in restricting construction work.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: Have any of those companies gone broke yet?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, arising out of a statement which appeared in the Toronto Star of May 3, copy of which I have sent the minister and therefore I shall not

read it into the record. It was to the effect that the minister had made some subsidy arrangement that might solve the work stoppage problem in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Has that statement been called to the minister's attention, and can he indicate what subsidies arrangement he intends to make for the purpose of meeting the difficulty in the two provinces mentioned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has not been a party to the negotiations leading up to the settlement of the coal strike. The position of the minister was made clear in the house some time ago-that when settlement had been effected, appropriate subsidy arrangements will be made on the basis recommended by the royal commission on coal, namely that the subsidy be a transition subsidy, and that it be not larger than the subsidy paid before the strike took place. The department has informed the Minister of Labour that a subsidy will be granted in amount required to implement the proposal of the Minister of Labour for the settlement of the strike which was made in this house some weeks ago.


Clarence Gillis: Then the statement in the Star has no foundation in fact?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.



BERRY PICKERS FOR THE FRASER VALLEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANK (Fraser Valley) :: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour if any arrangements have been made between the dominion and provincial departments of labour to bring berry pickers from the prairie provinces to the Fraser valley for the coming season and, if not, will consideration be given to this matter?


Humphrey Mitchell: I can assure my hon. friend that negotiations are going on between my department and the government of British Columbia, in fact with every province in Canada where a similar problem exists, in an effort to meet the situation. My hon. friend shakes his head, but this is a headache I have had for the last six years and there will be the same action taken this year.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You do not have berries in all the provinces.


Humphrey Mitchell: We will deliver the goods, I think, as we always have.

Inquiries oj the Ministry



TOURIST TRADE


[Stage Direction]
sportsmen's SHOWS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. FRASER (Peterborough West):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question. Is Canada represented at the international travel exhibition now being held at the Grand Central Palace, 'New York and if so, by what branches of the department?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The policy of the department is to alternate with our exhibits between travel bureau shows and sportsmen's shows in the United States. At the present time we are exhibiting at the sportsmen's shows on the Pacific coast and next year we will use the facilities of the travel shows.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. II. C. GREEN (Vancouver South): I should like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply if he has received a telegram from the city clerk of Vancouver asking him to ascertain from Commissioner Dillon Myer, of federal public housing authority in Washington, D.C., whether or not a city approved non-profit organization would be granted the privilege of acquiring and bringing to Canada 1.600 war surplus dwellings which are now situated in the Bremerton area in the state of Washington? If that telegram has been received, could the minister say whether there has been any action taken along the lines suggested ?
Clarence Decatur Howe: The wire was received and this reply, signed by myself, was sent to the city clerk under date of May 2:
We are only justified in approaching United States authorities if city of Vancouver or administrative organization formed by it will make firm bid at asking price which I understand is four hundred dollars per unit. On such advice will take matter up through Canadian embassy Washington. Provided city of Vancouver will take administrative responsibility directly or indirectly through non-profit organization such as citizens rehabilitation committee we will make emergency shelter grant of five hundred dollars per unit. Dominion will not import Bremerton houses on its own account nor are we prepared to make mortgage loans on Bremerton houses if moved to Vancouver.
I have tried to make clear in this house the position of the Bremerton houses. We regard
them as being substandard housing. We regard the estimated cost of establishing them in Vancouver as being in excess of the cost of providing houses of the same standard with Canadian materials and Canadian workmanship, provided the government is willing to take the responsibility for providing that type of housing, which it is not. The government believes that it is justified! only in building houses of a type suitable as permanent homes for Canadian citizens, and we regard the Bremerton houses as not being in that class.



BRAEFOOT VETERANS' LAND ACT PROJECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs if instructions have been issued that one of the houses, namely, 1421 Harrop road, erected under the Braefoot Veterans' Land1 Act project, be torn down and the veteran occupant ordered to vacate? If so, is the veteran being provided with other accommodation while his home is rebuilt?
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): I received notice of my hon. friend's question just an hour ago and I endeavoured at once to get in touch with Victoria but without success. The information available here is that no house is being torn down. There is substantial reconditioning of one house. If I have any further information later on in the day I shall communicate at once with my hon. friend.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: Will the Minister of National Revenue please advise the house the reason for the delay in calling the radio broadcasting committee?


James Joseph McCann: On Thursday last the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked a similar question. Arrangements have been made with the whips of the parties whereby the committee will be called this week.



IMMIGRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Glen for the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act.
Immigration Act
Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, because I consider the question of immigration the most important question before this house, indeed the most important that confronts tiie people of Canada now or will have to be faced in the measurable future, I find myself approaching what I have to say today with a great deal more diffidence than is usual when I rise to speak in this house.
I am sure I express not only my own opinion but that of the majority of the people of the province from which I come when I say that the section of the bill which rights the wrong respecting Chinese immigration has been long overdue and will be generally approved by the public.
I do not propose to deal this afternoon with the humanitarian arguments for immigration into Canada. No words of mine could add to the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) on this and other occasions, to the moving and eloquent appeal last Friday night of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) or to the speeches of the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) to which we have listened on one or two occasions.
By the statement which he read to the house the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made it abundantly clear that the government of the day, headed by himself, is fully cognizant of the responsibility of Canada and of our duty toward those unfortunate people frbm whom we may well seek immigration. I think I owe a debt to the Prime Minister for the conciseness of that declaration, because it eliminated much of what I would otherwise have had to say. I hope that in what I desire to put before the house this afternoon I may be able to contribute toward making his task and the task of the government easier in implementing the policy, both short and long term, which he enunciated the other day.
I think that no member of this house needs to be convinced of the unanswerableness of the humanitarian argument for immigration. I am equally sure that no intelligent member of this house needs to be convinced that there are two sides to the question of immigration. There is the duty which has been pointed out to us of making some contribution to the unfortunates of this war, and there is the duty, which we share with all parties in this house, of taking advantage of an opportunity which is now available to do something for Canada itself. In other words there is a great opportunity for Canada today in immigration, and it is of this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and of our own needs, that I purpose speaking this afternoon.

Ever since 1914-15, and the drying up at that time of the flow of immigration to this country, and even through the early thirties when there was some lowering of the bars and some immigration permitted, we Canadians generally have been busy explaining and apologizing for and explaining again the fact that we had abandoned the traditional policy of this country of seeking first to colonize our own territory and then to expand our population and our industries. Over the years the department of immigration has come to be relegated to the status of a subdepartment under another minister. I have not consulted with the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) with respect to the observations which I now propose to make, but I know something of his understanding of the problem and of his conception of his own responsibility, and I have no hesitation in saying that in so far as the proposals I shall make are designed to give clearer and quicker effect to the government policies enunciated by the Prime Minister with respect to the department over which the minister presides, he will I am sure be in full agreement with them. In so far as I am critical of the department of immigration I am equally sure that the minister will feel obligated to defend it.
During the years the department of immigration, once a great and important one, has been relegated to the position of a branch of another department, and there has not been in the past few years, as there once was, a minister charged with the responsibility of seeking and selecting immigrants abroad to meet a demand in this country. The department has been instinctively inclined to feel that its mission was to exclude those who sought to come here. With respect to this I charge no one in particular. I simply state it as an incontrovertible fact.
If Canada is to make either the shortterm or the long-term policy enunciated in the house the other day by the Prime Minister work soon enough to be effective, to accomplish its humanitarian purpose and to produce the full benefits which Canada hopes to receive from that policy, the department of immigration needs at this time to be born again. It is my view that we need a fulltime minister of immigration, and we need one now. The task of heading this department will, I submit, challenge the best brains which the Prime Minister can invite to the task. It needs something of the Canadianism of a Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the dynamic administrative capacity of a Clifford Sifton. More than that, it demands at this time a man who is able to distinguish between a

Immigration Act
policy of immigration which was an attempt on the part of the country to colonize its own lands, and a policy of immigration such as we now need, the purpose of which will be to bring about a planned and controlled expansion in this country. There is a vast difference between the two. Because it is a terrific problem, because it is to my mind the greatest single problem that confronts the federal government in Canada today, I should like for a moment to examine some of the reasons which lead me to make that statement.
Does anyone anywhere in Canada think that without a sharply increased population we shall be able over the years to increase our national income, or even to keep it at its present level? Our industries are hopelessly localized in thinly populated areas in a country which is only thinly populated. That being so, if again we come to those times and conditions where a shift of population will be necessary in the interests of the workers as well as of the producers, we shall find ourselves in a difficult if not a hopeless situation unless we restore something of the original programme of immigration, which was to expand and develop a more thickly populated country.
Immigration means more than that. Planned and controlled immigration means a home market for our surplus production. It means, and this is equally important, adding to the productive power and skills of the workers of this country, which is so necessary to the economy of this country, so necessary if we are to retain our place in the markets of the world. Immigration means something more which is important to every person in the Dominion of Canada. It means broadening of the base of taxation to pay for the services which we demand, and to pay for and maintain the defence which Canada must have. I think it was in 1937 when, speaking in this house on defence, I said that 12,000,000 people cannot forever hold half a continent in a land-hungry world. Those words were true then; they are equally true now. I believe that if we do not seek to double or approximately double the population of this country in the next twenty years, we stand in imminent danger of losing our present position as a free and independent power. I believe that in June, 1940, we were within weeks of such a position. I fear that such a situation may arise again. I know that we can and do rely on our neighbours, the United States, to stand with us against any attempted violation of our territory, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I am realist enough to know what the price of that might ultimately be. Furthermore I believe that failing to carry out such an expansive policy of immigration the logic of circumstances and the pressure of economics will, apart from any threat of war, be sufficient during the years to accomplish that fusion of interests of the north American nations which would result in that same loss of sovereignty which I had anticipated in case of attack.
It is not to be assumed, Mr. Speaker, because I say these things that I speak for the open-door policy of immigration. That policy functioned well when we were following what I have called the Canadian policy of colonizing our own lands. I do not suggest that that policy would function in the changed conditions of the moment. But I do suggest that the people of Canada demand, with a growing impatience more liberal immigration policies-not just policies of immigration, but the carrying out of those policies in a way which will result in bringing immigrants to the shores of Canada.
I have said that there is an insistent demand for liberalized policies. I am equally convinced there is an insistent demand that the policy of today and tomorrow shall be one calculated to bring prospective immigrants in contact with a plan for making them part of the economy of this country. In other words there must be a direct correlation between the man and the woman and the job and industry in Canada. My view-and I suggest it is the view of the majority of Canadians-is that the need for immigrants is immediate, urgent and vital to Canada.
For fear that I be accused of speaking without authority I wish to quote from one or two resolutions which have come to my hand, as I think they have come to most hon. members. In a policy declaration of the seventeenth annual meeting of the Canadian chamber of commerce, which met in Winnipeg in 1946, under the heading "Immigration," there are these words, which I contend, sir, support the view I take:
Canada must have a vigorous immigration policy immediately. This country needs and can support a very much greater population and the present opportunity may be the last in which we can freely choose the immigrants who will fill our thinly populated country.
I have another brief comment from the same source which I should like to give. It reads as follows:
Canada was built by the energy, skill and initiative of immigrants and her future growth will be accelerated by bringing in those with technical and scientific skills and experience as well as those prepared for labour on the farms and in the factories. Today as perhaps never before there are men of skill and experience
Immigration Act

with the capacities to establish new employment-creating industries, who are footloose in Europe and seeking opportunities in countries where they will be welcomed.
The Garment Manufacturers Association of western Canada, in a letter dated December 31, 1946, addressed to myself, again raised the question of immigration. With your permission, sir, I should like to quote one sentence from the letter, as follows:
We .are of the opinion that unless immigration is permitted, our industry is bound to suffer to a considerable extent.
I also hold in my hand a resolution of the Canadian Corps Association dated February 13, 1947. I should like to quote one sentence from the preamble, as follows:
And whereas in the opinion of this association immigration is the most vital public necessity in Canada at the present moment . . .
These three quotations, Mr. Speaker, representing business men-the chamber of commerce, those who employ people-the needle trades, and one group of veterans in Canada, would seem to give point to the claim I make that there is general agreement on the part of the public in demanding the immediate opening up of immigration into Canada.
Speaking of the many thousands who can be assimilated into Canadian citizenship, as suggested in the chamber of commerce resolution I have just read, I realize the fact that such people do exist, and their need is as immediate, urgent and vital as is our need for immigrants. It is our good fortune that in coming to their assistance we, the people of Canada, are in a position not only to help them but to do a great service to our own country.
This and succeeding governments will be expected by the people of Canada to profit by their own mistakes and by the mistakes of their predecessors. It will be expected of them that Canadian standards of work and life, economic and cultural, shall be enriched and not debased by the type of immigrant who is encouraged to come to this country. This policy which we enunciate they will be expected in point of fact to put into practice.
I hope the house will not think that in emphasizing the urgency of immigration at this time I am unaware of the problems of transport and housing. I shall have something to say on that a little later. I am aware of the difficulty. I mention it because I am concerned that those who may be directing their attention to the problem of immigration shall not use these difficulties as an excuse or a cloak for inaction.
At long last it does seem that the people of Canada are awakening to the realization our

fathers had, that we have both a duty and an opportunity to enrich our heritage and the heritage of our children. We need to remind ourselves over and over again that when we come to consider the question of immigration that it is we, the people of Canada, who in the long run profit by the right kind of immigration, and we profit more greatly than the immigrants themselves, no matter how difficult may be the situation from which they come.
May I say a word or two about the mechanics of immigration itself. At page 2645 of Hansard of May 1, 1947, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said:
The government is sending immigration officers to examine the situation among the refugee groups, and to take steps looking towards the early admission of some thousands of their number.
That is, of course, an evidence of the recognition of the urgency of the position. I am expressing my own view, and I am sure the view of most of the people of Canada, when I say I hope that these words will be implemented speedily by the actual arrival of immigrants to Canada.
Despite the shipping shortages, which are real, I suggest to the Minister of Mines and Resources, who is concerned with this problem, that probably five to ten empty vessels will arrive at the port of Churchill this summer. At slight cost, and I am sure without any complaint from the immigrants themselves as to the inconveniences which they might be called upon to suffer, it will be possible before this fall to bring several thousand immigrants into the heart of the country via that route. That it will be done I feel sure, if the department sincerely desires to get them and get them quickly.
Despite the housing situation in Canada I estimate, on the best information I can get, that Canada this year could absorb at least 80,000 single men or men who are married but whose families in the countries from which they come are adequately provided for until such time as the housing shortage no longer exists. Those who remember the former periods of immigration will recall that one of the largest exports from this country for a number of years was the money which was being sent home, to support their families, by men who came to this country as immigrants. That continued until such time as they could bring their families to Canada to live with them. It is a situation which is not too difficult.
I suggest that the 80,000 single men who could come in this summer be absorbed in the mines, in the forests and on the farms without causing a fraction of one per cent disturbance to the housing problem. Relatives of persons

Immigration Act
who are already citizens of Canada could be brought in. They might cause a little inconvenience, but certainly less inconvenience than where they are now. It would be a beginning which, although small, would be satisfactory, and would be evidence not only of the good will but of the good faith of this dominion. If we have a department whose duty it will be to find and select people and get them here, I think with such a beginning we might safely feel we were at the dawn of a new and brighter era.
I should like to say a word or two about another aspect of the immigration problem, that of emigration. Far too much sentimental nonsense has been talked about Canadian born who themselves emigrate. I do not reproach those who lament the going to the United States or elsewhere of the sons and daughters of Canada; as a matter of fact, I share the feeling of loss. But, sir, when it is suggested that these migrations or emigrations of Canadians to the United States and elsewhere are somehow connected with the general question of immigration into Canada, then you get a picture of the situation which, I submit, is wholly erroneous. Large numbers of immigrants have come in the past, are coming now and will continue to come to Canada, just as they do to Mexico, because they have failed to get in under the immigration quotas in the United States where they have families and friends and where they desire to go. That condition is one over which at the moment we have no control, and probably never shall have; but a considerable number of those who came to this country and later went to the United States came for that purpose and in that fashion. There is no use in charging anyone with the job of finding out what their future intentions are, because it cannot be done. That accounts, I submit, for a considerable number of the immigrants who emigrate.
Not only that, but there is an emigration which consists largely of doctors and nurses, engineers and to quite a considerable extent chartered accountants. This represents a serious loss to the population and to the economic and social life of Canada. But I do not think anyone would suggest that the bringing in of immigrants who in the first instance come largely from the labouring classes has in any way contributed to the necessity for these leaving us. On the contrary I think that if we increased our immigration sharply, the opportunities for professional people who now emigrate would be very much better in Canada than they are today. Anyway, I wonder if the house or the people of
Canada generally think it is necessarily a bad thing to have a steady flow of some of our best people from this country to the United States, our friendly neighbour, a country so much larger and stronger than we are that we should hardly dare to differ from them? And if the alternative is to keep these people at home, does anyone think that our sons or daughters, or even humanity itself, would be served to advantage if they were kept in Canada to do jobs which were far below their capacity?
Scotland's greatest contribution to the world has doubtless been made through her sons and daughters who have made their homes in the far corners of the earth. By their philosophy and their industry, their skills and capacities, they have contributed largely to the various societies of which they formed a part. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that we cry too much about our loss, which is so often humanity's gain. Back in the early twenties every member of the graduating class in engineering in a western university went to South Africa, South America or the United States. I took the trouble to check up in 1939 and I discovered that all but two were back here, employed in their professions; they were in responsible positions in the Canadian engineering world. We sometimes overlook the fact that our sons, by their excursions into other lands, seeking experience which it is difficult for them to gain at home, are but preparing themselves to make an even greater contribution to the life of their own country, Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am deeply conscious that I have failed this afternoon to do justice to my theme. For instance, I have not emphasized the contribution which the last generation of immigrants made to this country. Without checking it up, I venture to say that a large number of the members of this house are themselves of that gallant company. I know that many more of us are the first-born sons of immigrants. That being the make-up of this House of Commons, I assume-and I think rightly-that we in this chamber are aware of the contributions generally which that generation of immigrants which came in the early 1900's-and some of them before that-have made to the peace and prosperity, the well-being and development, cultural, social and economic, of this country. There is no reason to believe that succeeding generations will not, under the conditions which prevail today-infinitely better than those which the earlier pioneers experienced- enhance their reputation as immigrants and do their part in making this Canada into the sort of place we believe it can be and which the Minister of Finance in his budget speech the other day, expressed belief it would be.
Immigration Act

My plea, then', is for a national effort for what I conceive to ibe the great national need. We in Canada have established a high standard of social services, and we have no intention of going back. We hope for better things. We will not lower our standards without a struggle; and I suggest that we can maintain the social services and other high standards we have in the country only if we are able to maintain our national income. I for one do not believe that it will be possible to maintain our national income in the years to come without adding to our population. We must work, we must consume, we must export. That being so, we need the reinforcements which a fresh influx of controlled immigration will give in the field of initiative, in the highly skilled trades, as housing becomes available and in the places where they can be used at the moment; in the camps, on the farms, in the forests. I think these things are essential. The idea of full employment, as it has been bandied about by politicians and others in this country from time to time, is for the future meaningless unless we are able to develop a population which will be able to a larger extent to support itself, to defend itself, to bring fresh effort and endeavour, fresh experience and fresh knowledge into the battle of life. This is the normal situation in any country which depends as largely as we do on its relationships with the rest of the world. This government, this House of Commons and the people of Canada are faced with a decision. We may approach this great opportunity in a spirit which will delay and impede our national heritage; I hope we shall not do that. But, sir, I am so sure of the rightness and the inevitability of this policy in Canada that I believe the logic of figures and the march of time will save us from ourselves, if it is not too late.


Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, while I should like to take some time this afternoon in urging that Canada should offer hospitality to the homeless and helpless people in Europe, taking into account our great resources and their need, I propose to confine my remarks to the part of this bill affecting the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act.
As a Canadian I blush with shame every time I think that for twenty-four long years we have had on the statute books of this country an act known as the Chinese Immigration Act which selects a group of people on the basis of race and says:
The entry to or landing in Canada of persons of Chinese origin or descent irrespective of allegiance or citizenship, is confined to the following classes, that is to say,
(a)	The members of the diplomatic corps . . .
(b)	The children born in Canada of parents

of Chinese race or descent, who have left Canada for educational or other purposes, on substantiating their identity to the satisfaction of the controller at the port or place where they seek to enter on their return;
(c) (i) merchants . . .
(ii) students . . .
I am sure that most Canadians welcomed the Prime Minister's statement on January 27 of this year to the effect that this obnoxious legislation was to be repealed. The Prime Minister in his press release of January 27 said that the effect of the repeal will be to remove all discrimination against the Chinese 'on account of race, and to bring Chinese persons under the general provisions of the Immigration Act and no longer under legislation applying exclusively to persons of Chinese origin.
Well, what do we find? We find the government does not propose to carry out the Prime Minister's promise, because both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) have made it very clear that again there is to be racial discrimination, and the Chinese are to be brought under P.C. 2115 passed September 16, 1930. In part this order in council says:
From and after the 16th August, 1930, and until otherwise ordered, the landing in Canada of any immigrant of any asiatic race is hereby prohibited, except as hereinafter provided.
If the Prime Minister's promise were to be carried out of course the Chinese would be placed in the same category as all others, and they would be admitted to Canada under P.C. 695, passed on March 21, 1931. This order in council permits the entry into Canada of the wife or unmarried child under eighteen years of age of any person legally admitted to and resident in Canada who is in a position to receive and care for such dependent. So the position is that we are still to have legislation in this country based on racial prejudice.
I would remind the house that Canada has subscribed to the charter of the united nations, which contains these words:
We the peoples of the united nations, determined ... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small . . . and for these ends to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours . . .
Then in article 1, paragraph 2, the purposes of the united nations are set out as follows:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.

Immigration Act
And in article 55, chapter IX:
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the united nations shall promote:
c. universal respect for, and observance of. human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
Now in 1947 parliament is asked to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act but still keep the people of Chinese origin in an inferior position. My information is that only 8,746 of the Chinese resident in Canada will be eligible to bring in their relatives under the order in council that is to apply to them, which is P.C. 2115. It might be mentioned that for many years Chinese could not become citizens of Canada because of P.C. 1378, passed June 17, 1931, which prevented Chinese from becoming citizens without the consent of the Chinese government. No doubt there was some justification for the passing of that order in council at the time, because Prance, the United States and the United Kingdom had extraterritorial rights in China and probably it would have been possible for Chinese to take out citizenship in other countries and then take advantage of the rights granted to citizens of those countries. But in recent years the Chinese have been most anxious that citizens of that country should not be treated any differently than the citizens of other countries, in respect to obtaining citizenship in this country. I was very glad, during the debate on February 11, to hear the Minister of Mines and Resources state, in reply to criticism by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that this obnoxious order in council would be repealed, and that was done very soon after. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar quite correctly said, "You are perpetrating a cruel hoax if you allow this to go on after it has been pointed out to you. I say you are letting the Prime Minister down and placing the whole Liberal party in a position where they might be termed guilty of hypocrisy."
When this legislation was before the house in February the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) made a very commendable speech, as he does on many occasions. However, he did his party an injustice when he said that since the passing of this act only eight persons had been admitted from China. My information is that nine persons have been admitted, and I hope the hon. member will not mind this correction being made in the official record. I was interested in reading the debates which took place when this act
was passed, and I would like to remind the house that the present Prime Minister was Prime Minister at that time as well. At page 2312 of Hansard for April 30, 1923, the Prime Minister said:
If, however, we lose sight of the international aspect and use expressions-either unguardedly or for other reasons-which are certain to be repugnant to peoples of another part of the world, I am afraid that instead of helping to relieve a very serious situation we shall only be creating-perhaps not for ourselves but for others-a situation which will be infinitely worse.
The Prime Minister took exception to the obnoxious head tax, and went on to say:
I could never see how Canada, from any self-respecting point of view, could impose a poll tax on working people coming from another country, and at the same time have its population subscribe to funds for missionary purposes to teach the heathen the most elementary principles of Christianity. The government has shared that view and has felt that any indignity of the character of the imposition of a poll tax upon a people in any other part of the world was something to which we, as a Christian community. should not lend our approval. So we have decided to abolish the head tax for that reason if for no other.
Still later the Prime Minister said:
I am not saying what the effect of this legislation may be when it is passed. What I am saying is that no country that I know of, under the British flag, has ever attempted, or in the name of British justice and fair play, and fair dealings with the peoples of other parts_ of the world would attempt, to enact an exclusion law against another nation, regardless altogether of the status or standing of the classes that may be affected.
Well, I hope the Prime Minister meant that. He did not know what the effect was going to be, but the hon. member for Spadina has told us the effect; the result has been that nine persons in twenty-four years have been admitted to Canada. If that is not an offence to the people of China I do not know what you would call it.


Mr. REID:: So many of them were coming to Canada in those years that the exclusion act had to be put through. The head tax did not stop them.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The facts are-


Thomas Reid: Those are the facts.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -that the parliament of this country passed legislation based on racial prejudice which never should have been passed by any self-respecting parliament; and in this day, when we are trying to create understanding, no self-respecting parliament can subscribe to legislation which selects a group of people and says, "You shall be debar-

Immigration Act
red because we do not like your colour." regardless of whether or not persons desiring to come here have any crimes chalked up against them.


Thomas Reid: If you had lived in British Columbia, you would have been with us on that occasion, too.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: 
Mr. MacNICOL:: He is always in good
form.


Jean-François Pouliot: True.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I sincerely hope before this legislation is passed the Minister of Mines and Resources will indicate that he has changed his opinion, that order in council 2115 affecting Asiatic immigration has been repealed, and that all persons coming to Canada will be considered on exactly the same grounds, without any question of religion or race or origin.


Mr. GLEN:: Is it the hon. member's argument that we should repeal order in council 2115?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes.


James Allison Glen: And that all immigrants should then come under order in council 695, with the section dealing with Asiatic immigration deleted from 695?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is right.


James Allison Glen: That is your argument?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is right. I feel that Canada cannot go to the meetings of the united nations and at the same time have discriminatory regulations, such as P.C. 2115. which apply to persons of Asiatic origin, and bar from our country the relatives of so many people. I am sure people in China can never accept the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines and Resources at their full value while they subscribe to that sort of legislation.
In the report on the second part of the first session of the general assembly of the united nations I noticed that Canada was forced to make a statement on November 25, 1946. regarding India's complaint against South Africa. While the name of the spokesman for Canada is not indicated, I presume it was our Secretary of State for External Affairs, who was chairman of the first committee on political security. If I am wrong

Immigration Act
in this, the minister will no doubt correct the record. But I suggest it must have been most embarrassing for Canada to take part in a discussion where India was justly complaining about racial discrimination in South Africa. On November 25, 1946, Canada's spokesman said:
As it seems to me, we are all agreed that the item presently before this joint meeting has legal and political aspects of the first magnitude.
The Indian delegation has proposed that this assembly call upon the South African government to revise its policy in respect of Asiatics in general, and Indians in particular, and to report to the next session of this assembly the action it has taken in this regard.
The South African delegation does not deny that there exists in South Africa legislation which discriminates against Indians.
And further down:
I must at the outset express full agreement with the delegate of China that the question of policy involved in this issue is of greater significance than the question of law. It does not follow, however, that we can neglect to give adequate consideration to the important question of jurisdiction with which we are undoubtedly faced ... It is worthy of note also that article I of the charter states in clear terms that it is a purpose of the united nations to promote international cooperation in "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion." This is an unqualified obligation which rests upon each member of the united nations.
I submit that it is hypocritical for any delegate from Canada to stand before a meeting of the united nations and throw stones at South Africa, while we have a skeleton in our closet which proposes to have one set of regulations for people of Asiatic origin and other regulations for people of non-Asiatic origin.
The hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) on Friday made reference to a family in his constituency, and stated:
In the city of London we have a Chinese family by the name of Wong, to whom I should like to refer. In that family are eight children, of whom three are doctors; one is now at Osgoode Hall a member of the legal profession, while the remaining four are in business in London. They are among the very finest of our citizens.
One of the members of the family was an interne in the city of Saskatoon, and I have heard from doctors and patients alike that she was one of the most brilliant young medical doctors they have had in their hospital. It could be argued with force that these three medical doctors, all of whom were born in Canada, are making a valuable contribution to our Canadian economy. It is
proposed to bar the admission of such children, just because the father is not a Canadian subject.
So long as P.C. 1378 was in effect it was almost impossible for Chinese residents in Canada to get their citizenship papers. Not only had they to get consent of the central government in China, but they virtually had to repudiate the great country of China. Their applications had to go to the province, to the county, and then to the village. The people had it drawn to their attention that here was someone who had been born in China but who was now repudiating his country and wanted to take out allegiance to another country. It took months and sometimes years to get a final decision. And because of the red tape only a small number were ever able successfully to complete their papers.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Is the hon. member advocating that we throw down the immigration bars and let them come in without regard to any regulations?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No; I am suggesting that we should put people of all races in exactly the same position. Canada has the right to decide who will come. But I object to having legislation which says that we shall have one law for Asiatics, another for Scotch, another for French, and another for people from another country.


Charles Edward Johnston: You think they should all be treated alike?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If Canada is going to subscribe seriously to the principles of the united nations, then I say we cannot afford to have racial discrimination in our statutes, or to have orders in council which give effect to racial prejudice.
The hon. member for Middlesex East referred to the Wong family, which is fairly well known in this part of Canada. Hon. members might be interested in hearing about a Saskatchewan man who is not well known except in one small centre. I refer to Charlie Quan, who came to my constituency in the hungry thirties when people in the dried out areas were going north to settle in the bush country. He felt that he should go too and he found himself in a little place by the name of Somme, which suggests that it was settled by veterans of world war I. He had the only restaurant, the only sleeping quarters that were available to the public. He was cashier, waiter, cook and dishwasher; he ran the entire establishment. One day his total sales amounted to only five cents for a package
Immigration Act

of chewing gum, and on another day two chocolate bars comprised his total sales. The first time I stayed there the only sleeping quarters available were hard board bunks without any springs or mattress. However, there was no charge made for anyone making use of that accommodation; you merely paid for your meals. Out of his very small earnings Charlie was able to send money home to China to educate his children. His oldest son became a civil engineer. I have had correspondence with this young lad for a number of years. I remember his first letter was written while in high school, and he deferred sending it until he could have his English teacher check it. He mentioned to his father that it would be inexcusable for one who had had the advantages he had to make a mistake in English. I wish some of our Canadian youth were as anxious about the use of English.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why stop at the youth?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have in my file a letter dated October 30, 1937, from the younger Quan in China. This was written about six months after he had become an engineer. He says:
China is a nation fond of peace. After the fighting had started, several attempts were made to obtain a truce but all failed and fighting broke out. Events revealed that Japan is prepared to challenge China, Asia and then the whole world. China resists Japan's aggression not only for the preservation of our territory and rights but also for the preservation of harmony and peace in the world. China is ready for the coming long war. In case of necessity China makes the supreme sacrifice. We don't care or don't smile when one town or village is lost or recovered. We wait for the victory in the last fighting.
In the past three months Japanese forces gain in China was not equal to loss. We trust the longer the fighting exists, the quicker the Japanese forces decompose.
I must thank the Minister of Mines and Resources for making it possible a year ago for this young man to visit his father. He had been selected by the Chinese government to take post-graduate work in the United States-and he finally found himself in San Francisco. The Canadian regulations would admit him provided he was assured he could return to the United States, but the United States authorities would not give him any guarantee that if he left the United States his status would be reestablished. Although he had not seen his father for twenty years, although they were only a few hundred miles apart, he was reconciled to going back to China without seeing his father. However, through the kindness of the minister it was

made possible for him to be admitted to Canada to visit his father, after which he returned to the United States where he completed his work.
I think a great injustice is done when by regulation we bar such persons as young Quan just because of race prejudice. I hope the minister will give consideration to repealing this order just as he did the other objectionable order, P.C. 1378. If he can do that, I am sure that people in all parts of Canada will feel that we have taken a step forward. Just as the passing of legislation in 1923 was one of the things which made international understanding difficult, the maintaining of this type of legislation makes it more difficult for the nations of the world to understand and appreciate each other's difficulties. In view of the fact that there are very few people involved, I think the minister should meet the request that comes from this section of the house.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speech delivered by my hon. friend. If I am not mistaken he is in favour of mass immigration from the orient.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, I did not say that; I merely asked that the Chinese be placed in the same position as people of other nationalities. I did not discuss the broader question of immigration; I was asking merely for the removal of regulations which result in discrimination.


Jean-François Pouliot: On that I agree with the hon. member.	I think one of the best
speeches made since the beginning of the session was that made in another debate about the Japanese by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud). I speak as one who comes from the part of the country where there are the largest number of broad-minded people. I refer to the province of Quebec where no discrimination exists against any one. The people of my province have proved that on many occasions by electing English-speaking gentlemen in French-speaking constituencies. They were satisfied with them so long as they were satisfied with their policies. This should be known to all. On those occasions the province of Quebec proved to be broad-minded and without prejudice.
I wonder if this question of immigration is being considered as it should be. We are now discussing this bill and then we shall deal with the bill on housing. In my view we should have first settled the matter of housing and then we could see what we could do for immigrants. If we have no houses in which to shelter them when they come the

Immigration Act
situation may be quite embarrassing. The housing problem is far from being settled in spite of the splendid efforts of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Howe). It is strange that when we discuss certain matters we consider first that which should be in the second place, and this is one example.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke a few days ago about immigration he said that transportation was limited. That is true, but transportation is not the main problem in connection with immigration. Transportation is a secondary problem; the main problem is that of selection. The hon. member who just spoke said that race should not be a consideration when the qualification of an immigrant was under review. He is perfectly right. There should be no question of race at all; the only question should be whether or not the newcomer will prove an asset to Canada. If a man has a good background; if he is willing to come to Canada and consider Canada as his country, then he should be admitted. It is only after that inspection has taken place that we should consider the transportation of that man and his family to this country.
We should not forget that the old pioneers of French as well as of British extraction were simply immigrants to this country. Champlain was an immigrant. Jacques Cartier was not; he was a navigator. Monseigneur de Laval, the first Quebec bishop, was an immigrant. He belonged to a noble family in France and was a chaplain at the French court. He could have done very well over there but he came here as an immigrant. So did many people of British extraction, but they decided to come and settle in this country, do their share in developing it and raise their children here. We are all the same. We have only to consider who the first pioneers in this country were to realize that we are all descendants of our ancestors who, the moment they decided to come here, made Canada the country of their choice. So I say that we are all descendants of immigrants, and we have no reason to be ashamed of that. It is the same in all the British dominions. In Australia, New Zealand and Africa, all the white people are descendants of those who went there from various parts of Europe, settled in those dominions and helped in their development.
At times we, hear it said that we should have no immigrants. That is the point of view of some people, and while we may differ from it we must respect their right to their point of view. Any immigration we have should be selected immigration, selected at the source,
and we should do nothing in our immigration policy just to please another nation. I do not see how our immigration policy should be related to the social, political and economic circumstances of other countries, even if those circumstances resulted from the war. We should consider the conditions in our own country and in each case we should consider the effect of the admission of one immigrant and his family to this country. How can we fix any quota on immigration now and say that we shall bring in so many displaced persons, one thousand, two thousand, five thousand, one hundred thousand, unless they are all examined in the first place to see whether they will be an asset to Canada if they do come here?
We are not far away from the last war and there is still prejudice against some peoples of European countries with whom we have been at war. I understand that these effects of war last quite a long time. During the war we heard so much propaganda against the peoples of central Europe that we are still under the impression that they might make bad citizens and that we must ban their entry into Canada.
In Europe so many people have suffered deeply during the war and post-war that they want to get away from Europe. They want to go to another country where they can enjoy a liberty which they have not known in Europe for a very long time, scores and scores of years. They say: We will go to America or Canada, where life is different, where people enjoy liberty. That is a great tribute to our country. But in the first place, to those who have suffered from the evils of both wars in Europe and to those who have suffered from hunger and cold and from the lack of shelter we must show the conditions which they will experience in Canada and tell them how they can make good in this country. For instance, if Canada is described to. them as a land of liberty, as a true democracy, they will be greatly surprised to find controls in force in this country when they come here. We must not disappoint them. We should- tell them the truth about this country. Advertisements should not be used only to promote the interests of transportation companies, rail and water. There should be no exaggeration in thfe advertisements; the people should be told the plain facts about Canada. They should be told about our mode of living, and as far as possible

and I believe this is possible-we should aim to admit only those who have the same mentality as our own.
I have no prejudice against Chinese women, although no one in Canada will contend that the majority of Chinese women have the culture of Madame Chiang. It is a serious mat-
Immigration Act

ter to open the door too wide to Asiatic peoples, because their mode of living is entirely different from ours and they may be miserable after they get into this country. That is not a matter of discrimination at all. I just put it to hon. gentlemen: Is the education of Chinese women the same as that of white women? It is entirely different, and perhaps Chinese women would be disappointed when they got here. That is an angle of the question to which I draw the attention of my hon. friend.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is what Ontario people say about the residents of Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not compare them with Chinese women, but I will say that their education is much more like that of the residents of Quebec than is the education of the Chinese and I am sure my hon. friend will admit that, although he is a great humourist at times.
I can understand that the people of Europe who have suffered so much not only physically but mentally now want a change, and if they break their family ties and get away from the traditions which they have so long cherished in their native land, whether it be the British isles, France, Germany or any other country, it is because they want something different. They want to come to a country where they can breathe. I hope no one of them will be disappointed when they come to Canada; that here they will enjoy liberty and the respect of their fellow citizens, provided that there is room for them here. So long as we have a certain number of unemployed I do not see how we can bring into this country people from outside who will do at lower rates work which does not exist for our own people. The standard1 of life in Canada is higher than the average standard of life of people under similar conditions in Europe. Therefore our . people need more to live on than do Europeans. Asiatic people need less to live on than do Europeans.
If our own people suffer from unemployment for any consideration, because there is less work, ljecause the company cannot afford to keep a certain personnel, et cetera, et cetera, they have to say at home receiving the benefits from the unemployment insurance commission. What will they think of immigrants coming to this country by the shipload to take their places in jobs, in plants, in any kind of work?
It creates discontent, and discontent breeds many troubles.
It is not the question of race which should be the subject matter of the inspection of immigrants; it should be the background. The

inspectors should be qualified men to consider not only the physical health of those who want to come to Canada but also their mentality, because those who come here as subversive agents are the most dangerous of all, and Ottawa is a place for spies. We know about it. We were all put to shame on account of it. But there is something else. It is common knowledge that a woman who was under the roof of the high commissioner for the United Kingdom was a pink communist since 1932. She was there under the wing of all the high commissioners who succeeded each other, spying for another country.


Mr. JAQUES:: What is her name? '


Jean-François Pouliot: My friend knows as much about the matter as I do. I will not insist upon it. He knows about it. I am stating a fact which is public; it is not secret, and it has been announced in the press. Those who do spying, subversive propaganda and others may be wolves disguised as lambs to get into this country and create trouble. Therefore the check must not be on the race; the check must be on the person who is coming here. That is one point which I wish to bring to the attention of the house.
Moreover, sir, what shall we do with the mass of immigrants who may come to this country? Will they be farmers? There is no room for them. There is very little room left for farms in the St. Lawrence valley, in the Ottawa valley or in the west. The best lands have been taken. The only thing to do is to develop the north and bring selected immigrants to the north. But, first, the north should be opened. We should have railways to go there. There should be surveys of land. Make a choice of the best possible land, the most fertile land. We should send prospectors to the north to develop the mines. Can one expect the immigrants to live as the first pioneers did who came to this country, and go to the north in a canoe and portage and all that? We should have roads for them. Therefore, unless there are better communication facilities with the north, I do not see how we can have mass immigration into this country. There is great wealth in the north. According to the explorers, including the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who spends so usefully his leisure time during the summer in visiting the far north, there is unsuspected wealth in the north. These are elementary considerations. If we are to bring immigrants to this country the coming of each of them should be such an asset to the country that he will repay Canada in some way or another by being a country builder.

Immigration Act
If we have some difficulty it is precisely because the matter is not considered seriously enough. Some people would like to have only citizens of British countries come here. They know very well that in every British country, as in ours, there are citizens who belong to other races. I shall ask my hon. friends from the western provinces who are the best farmers that they have there. They will answer me quite rightly that there are some who are of every origin. If they take a farmer from central Europe, Hungarians and others, they will realize that they are progressive and they make a success of their farms. The same thing applies to those who come from countries nearer Russia, people from Germany, Italy and from all over Europe. Generally they do very well, and I do not see why they should be banned from this country when they would be an asset to Canada if they were admitted here.
I bring all these matters to the attention of the minister. He is an able man; he is gifted with that rare quality of common sense. I believe, too, that he is a good Canadian, notwithstanding the fact that he was not born in Canada. He is a much better Canadian than some who were born here, as I said to him also when he occupied the Chair.
We may naturally consider the question of refugees and displaced persons with Christian charity. We must do that, but the government should not be a benevolent society to assist all those who have suffered in Europe. It is a physical impossibility to do that. Because a man has suffered in Europe, it does not follow that he will become a good Canadian citizen. There must be something more than that. The fact that a man or woman is a refugee is not a qualification for admittance to Canada; not at all. But that is not to say that, because one is a refugee, he shall not be admitted to Canada with full honour if he has the necessary qualifications to show that he will be a good citizen and will live up to the expectations of the minister, the government and the population of this country.
I come now to the practical steps which may be taken within the present physical limitations imposed by transportation, and I say that we should not complain and say that the transportation facilities are not as good as they were previously. My reason for saying that is that it gives the minister the time in which to shape a policy of immigration. He may call it planning if he wishes; that is his own business. But it should be a well-thought-out and well-inspired policy. I do not believe in too great a moral obligation to assist other peoples of the world 83166-176
unless the people of Canada are well looked after and there is no unemployment in this country, at least in the technical trades. Assistance may be given individually by those who wish to do something; but, with the burden of taxation that we have, I do not see that as a nation we can any longer come to the assistance of the other countries of the world, especially when they snub Canada whenever she has a suggestion to make at the various meetings or conferences. If I say that, it is not because I have no Christian charity; it is because I think of my own people before thinking of others. I may be called a nationalist, but I believe that Canada is a country which exists and that Canadians should be looked after first; then, if we have something left over, we shall help others. I say that charity begins at home.
The Prime Minister mentioned some thousands who were coming here for early admission. What is the number? I will ask the minister these questions and he may answer me later. What will be the quota that Canada will accept as its share in meeting the general problem of immigration? What are the measures of productive immigration, and what is productive immigration as mentioned by the Prime Minister in his statement the other day? He said also the essential thing is that immigrants be selected and that their numbers be adjusted to the absorptive capacity of the country. What is the absorptive capacity of the country? How many immigrants can we accept, and where? They will land in Halifax, Montreal, Quebec city or Vancouver, but where will they go afterwards? That is not an academic matter. If a man, a woman and their children decide to come to Canada, it will probably be with the definite purpose of settling here. Therefore we should be ready to receive them just the same as when we invite them through the officers of the Department of Mines and Resources. They will be the guests of Canada until they settle down. But no one invites guests until he is able to offer them shelter and hospitality. That is the thing to think about, and I find that until now the discussion has been theoretical and vague; there has been nothing definite about what will be done with the immigrants after they have arrived in this country If Canada does not live up to their expectations, we shall be severely judged by them, and they will be right. They will have the right to blame the government and the people of this country for not delivering the goods when those immigrants come here.
I have tried to make a moderate speech, but this is a matter that I have been thinking

Immigration Act

about for a long time. I am not opposed to the change with regard to the Chinese, but China is a country which is still at war with the communists. How can we make the distinction between a Chinaman who is a communist and a Chinaman who is not a communist? To us, they all look alike. In addition to that, the admission of Chinese will perhaps be one means of the infiltration of communism into this country. We are not at war with China; they were our allies during the war. Part of that immense country of China was our ally, but the other part is at war with our ally. Whether they are supported by another country, I do not know; I presume so. But they are communists. If the minister seeks to prevent the admission of communist Chinese men or women, it will be very easy- in fact, easier for them than for anybody else -to defraud the inspectors and put it over them. When I say that, it is not because I hold any feeling of discrimination against the Chinese but because I think of the future. I do not want any communists, whether Chinese or white, to come to this country. That is my point of view. The same situation prevails among the populations of Europe. There are communists among the British people, just the same as there are among peoples of different racial origin in the other countries of Europe. Suppose we have to admit one who is a communist, or a pink communist, such as one who came on an official mission not long ago; the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) fixed him up, and I tried to do my best too. He was admitted with full honours. I need not name him, which would only give him more publicity, but he came to this country, paraded here, and was very well received. We even had him at the parliamentary restaurant upstairs, where he made a little speech. He was a pink communist, but was welcomed here.
I leave all these considerations with the minister and trust that with his usual good judgment he will make the best of the problem. With his usual care and patriotism I am sure he will see to it that immigration is not resumed for the sole benefit of the transportation companies or those whose business it is to secure permits for the newcomers. This debate has been conducted on a high plane, and I hope it may continue so. I hope this important question of immigration will be scrutinized carefully by all members of parliament, just as it is considered very deeply by the Canadian people at large.


Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Bur-rard):: In opening my remarks upon this subject, Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer my congratu-

lations to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka), to whose speech on Friday last we listened with great attention. I think everyone in the chamber must have been greatly impressed with his grasp of the subject and the sincerity with which he spoke, a sincerity due, I feel sure, to the personal knowledge he gained through an inspection of conditions in the displaced persons camps in Europe. I want to join with the hon. member in expressing fear lest this great announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-great although a year or two years late-may not be followed up by that energetic action which is necessary to translate into something concrete, a good policy, wanted by the whole country for a long time. So far we have had only the word; we have only gotten over the first hump, that of deciding that we are going to increase the population of this country through immigration. As yet we have not gotten down to the equally important business of translating that word into vigorous action. When the Prime Minister spoke he indicated that such action was contemplated. I want to express my hope that it will not be necessary for various groups of interested people and members of parliament to exercise the same pressure that has been required to bring the government over the first hurdle they had to surmount. In dealing with this subject the Prime Minister said, at page 2645 of Hansard:
The government is strongly of the view that our immigration policy should be devised in a positive sense, with the definite objective, as I have already stated, of enlarging the population of the country. This it will seek to attain through the development and energetic application of productive immigration measures.
We shall attempt to hold the government strictly to that statement, and see to it that they do adopt the energetic measures they promise. There is very much to be done before this decision, great as it is, can be translated into effective action. The necessary action does not lie only abroad, in the opening up of new immigration offices and making some special arrangements with regard to these refugees who so greatly desire to come to Canada. If we are to bring a large number of immigrants to this country over a period of years a great deal must be done internally if we are to absorb sufficient numbers to carry out the purpose laid down by the Prime Minister. It will require considerable cooperation between the government, industry and labour. It will require negotiations with other governments. Above all it will require a large capital development of our natural resources, so that we may put people to work and give them a stake before they go on the-

Immigration Act
land, as we probably hope most of them will do. We shall have to look to the north; we must see how we can stimulate prospecting and' the mining industry generally, so that we can be sure of an ever-expanding number of jobs for people coming to this country. In a smaller compass we shall have to think in terms of assisted passages, special ships, and so on.
Then we must not overlook- one important means of fostering immigration, to which I should now like to refer shortly; that is the scheme exemplified by the Fairbridge farm school near Duncan on Vancouver island. I am sure the minister knows about that scheme, but for the benefit of others who may not, let me say that it is a school set up for the training in Canadian ways of young boys and girls brought in from the British isles. The general policy of the school is set out in the principal's report for last year:
It is to settle in Canada boys and girls of British origin, selected in England and approved by Canadian immigration authorities. The interpretation of the word "settle" by this administration is to give the children such education and training under conditions of home care as will fit them to earn their own living as responsible Canadian citizens.
I want now to read another important paragraph in order to bring the crux of the matter to the attention of the house and particularly to the attention of the minister:
The extent of the education so given depends entirely on the funds available for that purpose whether supplied by the British isles or by Canada.
The school has been in operation for over eleven years, and has been very successful during that time, though all along it has been plagued by lack of funds; and it has not had any assistance from the dominion government. As at December 31, 1946, its strength was sixty boys and twenty-one girls. When it was designed I understood that its establishment was supposed to be fixed at 250. The difference,
I suggest to the minister, is accounted for principally by the fact that funds for a much larger establishment have not been available. When one is considering the value of such schemes it is interesting to refer to the disposition of the graduates of the school in those eleven years. Of the male graduates, twenty-five per cent are now engaged in agriculture in Canada while four per cent are in occupations related to agriculture. Some twenty-one per cent are serving in the merchant service. We know' how important that contribution was to our war effort. Then in industry and in business we have a further twenty-five per cent. The remainder are classified under manufacturing and building students, armed forces trades and miscellaneous. Of the girl 83166-1764
graduates fifty-two per cent are engaged in applied home economics, twenty-six per cent are housewives and the remainder are classified under sales and service, business and nursing, manufacturing and miscellaneous. It will be noted that the majority of the graduates from this school have gone into occupations in Canada to which we sorely need recruits, and they have amply justified the purposes for which the Fairbridge school was established.
When one turns to the war record of the graduates, he finds it very good indeed. At the termination of hostilities with Japan, ninety-five per cent of the boys and thirty-six per cent of the girls eligible by age to volunteer to serve, had done so. I do not suppose that record has been exceeded by any other institution or group in Canada.
For this, school funds have been provided from two- sources. Two-thirds are provided from Great Britain, and one-third comes from private donations by Canadian citizens, and by the British Columbia government.
The sums necessary to carry on the work for 1946 were divided as follows: private donations from Canada, $16,553, and a provincial grant of $12,500. making a total from Canada of about $29,000. From England the amount was $69,384. If this school is to be carried on- in the future, and is to continue to make the contribution it has made toward training young people in Canadian ways and customs, it is urgently necessary that it be given further financial assistance in Canada. It becomes increasingly difficult to get funds from Great Britain and the total funds available have not been enough to fill up the establishment originally intended. There is a great field for the minister, not only in this one school on Vancouver island, but in the establishment of other schools operating on similar principles in other parts of Canada-.
One of the energetic steps the minister could now take would be to look into this question of schools for the training of child immigrants in Canadian ways, and seeing to it that we have a continuous source of new Canadians brought in, in their tender years. There are many countries which at the present time are not willing to give up their manpower; but they would not mind making the young children available, if their parents wished them to come, so that they might have an opportunity for a greater future in this country. I hope the minister will take under his serious consideration, this particular scheme, and schemes of this kind, and perhaps make them one of his first energetic steps.
Immigration Act

I wish now to turn to the matter of oriental immigration-Chinese immigration-for the sole purpose of refreshing the minister's mind, on the questions asked by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) when he spoke on Friday afternoon. I am anxious to hear the answers to these questions when the minister closes the debate, because they are most important to the people of British Columbia.
Dealing with the subject, the Prime Minister said this:
I wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right ' of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege. It is a matter of domestic policy. Immigration is subject to the control of the parliament of Canada.
Those words will be most reassuring to the people of British Columbia. The Prime Minister went on to say that the Chinese Immigration Act was to be repealed upon the grounds of a seeming discrimination against our ally, China. I would join him in any attempt to remove any possible idea that Canada discriminates against that or any other country which was our ally in the war. But at the same time I wish to point out to the minister that the step we are taking in repealing this act, despite the clear enunciation of our policy, namely, that we have control over our own immigration, is a serious step for the house to take.
The Chinese Immigration Act, which was passed in 1923, was not put upon the statute oooks suddenly, but was enacted only after many years of effort on the part of those who were facing the practical problems we have heard discussed at such great length. We are now breaking down a safeguard which has existed on the statute books for twenty-four [DOT] years, one which has been most important to many people in British Columbia. I shall not go into detail on that point, because I think it has been fully covered in debate. However, under the measure now before the house it would be possible, simply by the repeal of this act, for the Chinese population in Canada to be tripled.
If members from British Columbia are to justify the letting go of this safeguard, not only must they be told the policy of the government as stated by the Prime Minister, with which I am sure most of us agree, but they must be told also the practical results they may expect from the application of that policy. We must not be left in the position where we do not know what will flow from what we do today. We want to know, in par-

ticular, if this is really a friendly gesture to our ally, or if it involves a major change in practice.
With that in mind I would refer now to the questions asked by the hon. member for Kamloops. First of all, what is the situation with regard to the treaty with China? Have negotiations been broken off? Are they continuing? If they are continuing, do they include the subject of immigration? What relationship has the repeal of this act to the negotiations for a treaty with China?
Second, how many Chinese does the minister expect will come to Canada in 1947, 1948 and 1949 as a result of this policy? Will the policy permit wives of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin to be brought in when the marriage occurs after the date of the repeal of the act? I understand that we calculate .most of our estimates of future population in relation to the year 1971, and I should like to know if the minister could make any forecast of what the Chinese population of Canada will be in that year and as a result of this policy?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Oh, oh.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I hear the Minister of Veterans Affairs laughing, but in his statement the Prime Minister was able to forecast the total population of Canada in 1971.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is quite different.


Gordon Graydon: Since when have those two hon. gentlemen become experts in population?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a typical
remark from Peel.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Perhaps the minister has the same information at his disposal as had the Prime Minister. Not only in connection with oriental immigration but in connection with our general immigration policy I am sure the house would like to hear from the minister about some of the practical measures which will arise out of the Prime Minister's statement. First, are we to control our general immigration on a quota basis? Second, how many immigrants, generally speaking, will be brought into Canada in 1947, 1948 and subsequent years as a result of the policy just enunciated. For instance, Australia made a forecast of how many they expected to bring in year by year, and I think the house would be interested in hearing what the minister has in mind.


Mr. D. S. HARKNESS (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in immigration for quite a number of years, and in

Immigration Act
the first speech which I made in this chamber in 1945 I made a plea to the government to adopt a large-scale immigration policy for Canada to be put into effect immediately our service men who were then overseas had been repatriated. Thus I was happy to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announce, on Thursday last, an immigration policy of considerable extent. It was one of the few government announcements which I have heard with which I was in entire agreement. In fact it would appear that the government had been studying our party's policy on this matter and had decided to adopt it. Be that as it may, they have seen the light and I trust that the policy as announced will be carried out energetically. I would have been even happier with the Prime Minister's announcement if he had outlined specific means by which the policy was to be carried out. However that is an omission which the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) will probably correct when he makes his speech.
In connection with displaced persons in Europe, I hope that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka), as reported on page 2736 of Hansard, will be adopted and carried out by the government. He suggested that immigration offices be set up in Germany, Austria and Italy where these displaced persons are to be found. I agree thoroughly with him, because there is no use in setting up offices in places where displaced persons are not living. If we are to help these people by bringing in a considerable number as settlers, immigration offices must be located where they are or immigration officers must go to them. It is manifestly impossible for them to go to the immigration offices.
In this connection I should like to make a plea for the Balts, the former citizens of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. I understand that these people constitute the largest single group in the displaced' persons camps in Germany. I understand also that a certain number of these people are of German extraction and, as the regulations stand at present, they would not be considered suitable immigrants to this country. I should like the government to wipe out or to pay no attention to that regulation which, I think, was made by some international organization having to do with moving these people out of Germany. I am sure that many of these people would make the best type of citizen. There is no question that a considerable proportion of our population of German origin have proved excellent settlers in this country, and I do not think
we should hold the fact that they happen to be of that particular ethnic origin against these people and refuse to let them enter.
A considerable number of refugees are without relatives in Canada, and I have no doubt that many of these people are of the best type in the refugee camps. I hope that the policy as announced by the Prime Minister of bringing out relatives of persons now in Canada or workers for primary industries will not be carried out so as to exclude some of the best of the refugees in the displaced persons camps. I would much sooner bring out people who would make good1 citizens, who would make outstanding contributions to the life of this country, whether or not they have relatives here, than I would bring out a poorer type of refugee who happens to have relatives here. The suitability of the person and the contribution which he can make to this country should be overriding considerations when we are dealing with refugees.
The government gave financial assistance to the bringing out of certain Polish soldiers to this country, and I took it from the Prime Minister's statement that similar financial assistance would be given to some of the displaced persons now in Europe. I have no quarrel with that, but I should like to ask the minister whether the moneys which have been expended to bring out the Polish soldiers are considered as loans which they will be required1 to repay, or considered as outright gifts. My view is that they should be considered as loans, and I think the same thing should apply to the cost of bringing out refugees from Europe under the newly announced policy.
Financial assistance should, in my opinion, be extended in even greater measure to immigrants from the British isles. They follow our way of life; they have essentially the same laws and particularly they speak the same language. As a result, they are assimilated almost immediately upon arriving in Canada. In my view, one of the chief things to look for in selecting immigrants, no matter where they come from, is how readily they can be assimilated into the life of this country. There is not the slightest doubt that the people of the British isles can be assimilated much more rapidly than those from any other land, and therefore they should be given the preference. And so, Mr. Speaker, I say that when financial assistance is being given to people from any other country a greater measure of it should be given to assist people from the British isles. I am not advocating that the assistance should be in the form of straight grants but, if a system of repayable loans were put into operation to assist people
Immigration Act

of the British isles to come to this country, you would have a large number of applicants. Undoubtedly at the present time millions of people in the British isles are anxious to emigrate, but a very large number of them have not the financial means to do so, particularly in view of the extremely high cost of ocean transport. I would strongly urge upon the government that consideration be given to a scheme of financial assistance to assist immigrants from the British isles.
I do not know whether the government have on foot any scheme or schemes to secure transport, which has been one of the big bottlenecks in bringing anybody to this country. If they have, before they bring anyone from Europe or anywhere else they should use some of that transport to bring to this country the fiancees of our own exservicemen. I know a considerable number in that class who are still in Europe. I have been working personally for over a year on the case of a well-to-do farmer just south of Calgary. During the war he was overseas and immediately upon his return he pleaded to get his fiancee brought out. Well over a year has passed, and the last I heard, some two weeks ago, was that his fiancee was still in England and unable to get transportation. To begin with, there was considerable delay because of the difficulties in getting all her papers in order. That is one thing which the immigration branch, now that its staff is to be increased, should iron out, so that people can get their papers quickly. There should be no delay on that score, but there was a considerable delay in her case.
Furthermore, when the government makes special provision for transportation, the very first people who should be brought out are the financees of our ex-servicemen. I have never been able to understand why fiancees were not included with wives in some modified form of the provisions which were made for bringing the dependents of our ex-servicemen back to this country.
I am in complete agreement with that part of the bill which deals with the bringing of dependents of ex-service men to Canada. But there are some cases of hardship caused by too strict and literal an interpretation of the act. and perhaps because of the wording of the act, which I find is interpreted literally.
I have another case on which I have been working for well over a year. It is that of a Canadian of Belgian extraction. He came to this country at the age of four with his parents. He returned to Belgium in 1931 and got married. He brought his wife back to Canada and lived here until shortly before

the war. They had a child and his wife and child went back to Belgium with him. He returned to Canada just before the war broke out, and she was to remain a few months longer and then join him, but she was caught by the German invasion of Belgium and remained behind the German lines throughout the war. This man joined the army in 1940 and was overseas for more than five years. He did not. get back to this country until January, 1946. He attempted to get his wife out under these provisions for bringing out dependents, wives and children, but was turned down because the act says that they must be dependents of men who were married overseas. He was not married overseas and therefore was not considered to come under the provisions relating to wife and children. He was not allowed to bring them back under this scheme, and as a matter of fact had considerable difficulty in getting them back under any scheme. It took him a long time and eventually cost him about $1,000. I do not think the act should be interpreted so literally as to exclude a case of that kind, particularly when the man's wife and child had endured some five years of the German occupation. When we come to consider the bill in committee I should like to have an assurance that cases of that kind will be included or that the wording of the act will be changed to include them. This was a case where great injustice was done. I think the man should be reimbursed the amount of money he has paid out to bring his wife and child to this country. The treatment he got was a very bad return for a soldier who spent five years overseas and went through the entire period of fighting1 in northwest Europe.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to disappoint the minister by not allowing the bill to pass at this time, but I consider the subject matter of the bill so important that everyone in the house who is vocal should register an opinion upon it.


Mr. GREEN:: We are all vocal.


Clarence Gillis: I want to state, first, that I recognize the problem which was passed to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen). I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) that the immigration branch requires at this time a full-time minister. I do not think immigration can be properly handled by any one person who has to preside over all the ramifications of the Department of Mines and Resources, and if I were advising the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the appointment of a minister of immigration I would recommend

Immigration Act
the hon. gentleman who now occupies the post of Minister of Mines and Resources. I do not think the department could be in more capable or more humane hands. He has also demonstrated, while Speaker of the house, that he is very good at shadow-boxing among the different complexes to be found amongst members on all sides of the house. I believe he is sufficiently well posted in the art of diplomacy to handle this difficult problem of immigration, because it will involve many ramifications in the years to come. Whatever Canada is to be in the future will be determined by the people whom rve bring into this country in the next few years.
I shall be as brief and as explicit in what I have to say as I possibly can. First, I wish to say that I see the question of immigration which confronts Canada today, in two ways. The first and immediate problem which has confronted Canada in the last few years is that of relieving misery in Europe. We were committed to undertake our proportionate share of that relief. Along with all the other countries which were our allies, we went to war for the purpose of liberating the oppressed peoples of Europe who were under nazi domination. Since the armies of liberation went in, about all we have succeeded in doing is impounding these people again. They are still in camps; they are still under military supervision; they are still wondering what is to happen.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced his new regulations a few days ago he said that the immediate concern of the Canadian government was to be that of bringing from Europe refugees and displaced persons who had relatives in this country who were able to provide for them if and when they arrived here. That recommendation must have been written by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), because it is a Scotch recommendation. They are able to come if they can pay their way; if they are not they can stay in the camps in Europe.
Judging from the discussion which has taken place in the house, one would assume that no people were brought to this country during 1946, and that if there were any they were carefully scrutinized on the basis of the announcement of the Prime Minister. That is not true. A few days ago I was surprised when I picked up a copy of the standing committee on immigration and labour's report, dated April 30, 1947. I found that, according to figures tabled by Mr. Jolliffe, deputy minister for immigration, in 1946 we permitted to come to Canada 117,798 people. They were not displaced persons. Of that number, 71,719
came in from the United States, Britain, and so forth. Britain and the United States contributed the largest number. Canadian service personnel dependents to the number of 46,079 came in. That is quite all right. They were legitimately entitled to come, because to all intents and purposes they were Canadians. But the 71,719 who were brought in were not selected on the basis of relieving misery in Europe. They were brought in here apparently because we needed them, not that they needed us.
If the principles announced by the Prime Minister in amending the regulations are to be followed out, then we have to do more than just announce principles. There must be a practical application of them. AVe have taken a lot of people in 1946, but we did not relieve very much misery in Europe. That should have been the first and immediate problem. After the war finished, I believe we should have started immediately and permitted anyone to come into this country who had relatives and friends here who were permitted to assume obligation for them. We have fallen down on the job very badly there.
During the past couple of years our immigration regulations have been restrictive. The reason for that was, of course, the building up of machinery in Europe through which we could work. Nevertheless the practical application of the regulations we may have had has been violated badly, in my opinion, by the government permitting by order in council two industrialists in this country to proceed to Europe and select for their own industries people to come to this country and work. This was done during the time when the house was sitting, during the time when a bill was on the order paper to deal with the question of immigration. During that time an hon. member who operates a textile mill in Quebec was given permission by order in council to proceed to Europe and to select for himself personnel to take employment in his plant. I believe that is something which should be condemned by every right-thinking person in the country. That is commercialized immigration. That will not help relieve the stress among people who are impounded and who have sacrificed everything they had in other countries for the purpose of preserving democracy and freedom in this world. In my opinion, that smacks of the old auction block, of the days of slavery, when the slave was taken onto the market-


Mr. MICHAUD:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Clarence Gillis: If it has any bearing on the subject before the house.
Immigration Act


Benoît Michaud: Is the hon. member aware of the steps which the hon member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne) has taken within the past twelve months to recruit Canadian employees to work in his mills? Does the hon member know that a number of-


Clarence Gillis: That is not a question.


Benoît Michaud: Does the hon. member know what proportion of his mills are not operating because of lack of personnel?


Clarence Gillis: I do not know, and so far as I am concerned no hon. member knows what steps he took or in what condition is his industry. The matter was arranged behind the scenes. Permission was granted him by order in council while the house was in session. In my opinion, this should never have been done, because the question of immigration was to come before the house. In answer to the hon. member's question, I wish to say further that if wages and conditions in the hon. member's textile mills will guarantee a living wage to workers in this country there are thousands of Canadian girls in Canada who will take employment in the textile industry.


Benoît Michaud: Does the hon. member think so?


Clarence Gillis: I am sure of it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock, I was making some observations on our immigration policy. As I stated at the outset, I thought the problem was divided into two aspects. I was dealing with the humane aspect at that time and was being critical of the application of our policy along humane lines. I said that I agreed with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that one of our first obligations should be the relieving of misery in Europe. I was pointing out to the house that I did not think the attitude, as set out in the order in council, was a proper one in permitting industrialists from this country to go to Europe and commercialize, as it were, the miseries of the people that we relieved from the nazi regime. To me it is not a new thing. That has been the immigration policy in Canada, as far back as I can remember, in any industry; not only in the textile industry, but in steel, in coal mining and in the heavy industries particularly.


Mr. BENTLEY:: And west coast lumbering.


Clarence Gillis: And lumbering, too. For
many years the policy has been to allow those who wanted cheap labour to go to Europe or any other country they desired to go to and to bring into this country people who were worse off than ourselves, for the purpose of establishing low-wage standards for people to be employed in that industry.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May	I	correct my
hon. friend there? That is not true of the early days in Quebec; it is not true of the early days in Nova Scotia, and it is not true of the early days in Manitoba.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know upon what
the minister bases his observations. But I do know it has been true of Nova Scotia at many times during my lifetime.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I interrupt my
hon. friend again?


Clarence Gillis: Certainly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The three movements of immigration in Nova Scotia were, first, in 1621 when the barons of Nova Scotia were allowed to take possession of the esplanade of Edinburgh castle; second when the Hector came to Pictou in 1773; and, third, when Norman Macleod came out in 1817, and that had nothing to do with industry.


Clarence Gillis: The history that is now
being cited by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) is very well known to me.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You have forgotten
it, then.


Clarence Gillis: My ancestors happen to go back to stock who were driven out of Scotland at that time for economic reasons and who chopped the trees off the province of Nova Scotia. But at that time there were no heavy industries in Nova Scotia. I am talking about the period after heavy industry was established in that part of the country, after the Scotch had come in there and laid the basis for those industries. The legislatures in Nova Scotia deeded over their heritage to the economic royalists to do that, and also the resources that they won at that time. Their heritage was taken from them.
I said a moment ago that on many occasions during my lifetime, after the establishment of the steel and coal industries in that province, agents of these companies went to Europe and brought in European labour; and it was difficult, on several occasions within my memory, for the mine workers, the steel workers and those employed in the heavy industries in that end of the country-and I

Immigration Act
think that is true of the whole of Canada- to hold the gains they had made over a period of years, because of the lack of knowledge on the part of these people who were brought in and the contracts which they were obliged to sign before they came in. That is the period I am talking about. This business of sending someone over to bring in labour from Europe is not something new. It is something that goes back at least thirty years in this country.


Thomas John Bentley: And longer.


Clarence Gillis: But at this time, in my opinion it is much worse to permit it than it was during those days, for the simple reason that I see an industrialist from Canada going to displaced persons camps in Europe in exactly the same way as I would see a lot of women crowding around Freiman's store tomorrow morning to attend a fire sale; only in this case it is a fire sale of human misery. Advantage is being taken of people who have nothing, where any door that is open to them is welcome. If we in this country are to take any people from displaced persons camps, for humanitarian reasons, it is our job to see to it that, if we have to take them in here, they will be given sanctuary and that, when they take employment in any industry, they take it upon the standards established by Canadians over the years.
An lion. MEMBER: That is what the idea is.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue that with you. You argue that in your own caucus and get the facts. We have not got them here.


An hon. MEMBER:: What are you talking about?


Clarence Gillis: I am telling you the story as I see it; and if you have anything to say which refutes anything I have said, you can get up in the house and put it on the record.


Mr. GRANT:: Talk to the Chair.


Clarence Gillis: The other angle of it is this. Our immigration laws are being exploited in many ways. I will give the house an example of what has been happening for the last couple of years. You have another form of backdoor immigration, particularly on your west coast. I have a clipping here from the Prince Rupert News, which is headed "World shipping racket exposed." What is happening there is that the merchant marine built up by the Americans and by ourselves is being sold to private interests. A ship which is commissioned in the United States by a private 83166-177
company will put aboard a United States crew. That ship cannot get a crew of any other nationality in the United States, because of their immigration laws. But that ship can go into Vancouver and discharge that United States crew-


James Horace King: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he knows his remarks should be relevant to the principle of the bill which is before the house. We are not discussing the merchant marine. The bill before the house is entitled, "An act to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act." The first section is to provide authority for the detention, guarding and bonding at the ports of entry and exit and while in transit, of parties travelling through Canada to some other country. The next section provides for the repeal of section SO of the Immigration Act; and the third section provides for the admission to Canada of the dependents of those who have served overseas in the armed forces. Therefore I would ask the hon. member to discuss the principle of the bill.


Clarence Gillis: That is what I am endeavouring to do, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about immigration; I am talking about backdoor immigration, and I am pointing out to the minister that the regulations, as we have them today, are being violated. I do not expect that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen), with the department he has to supervise today, is able to be in touch with every section of this country and know what is being done by way of immigration. I was pointing out to him that a ship can come in Vancouver, discharge the United States crew, take aboard a Chinese crew or one of any other nationality, and bring them in for that purpose. They do that merely by registering under the Panamanian government. This article, which I need not read- no doubt the minister has read it, since it is in a newspaper from his own province-points out that the merchant marine of both Britain and the United States is being threatened because of racketeers who have registered under the Panamanian government for the purpose of getting around the immigration regulations not only of Canada but also of the United States, by commissioning these ships in that way. So the point I want to make is that this form of backdoor immigration is leaving Canadian seamen on the streets in Vancouver, while these ships are commissioned with aliens under the Panamanian flag. I am just giving that as a piece

Immigration Act

of information to show the minister that his regulations are not being observed as I think he would want them to be.
In regard to the long-range programme of immigration, I agree with the statement made by the Prime Minister, that we can take people into this country only as we are able to absorb them, and that, while we are taking them in, we should be careful to see that the3' fit into the economic structure of Canada. While I am on that subject I would point out to the minister that, before a long-range programme .is undertaken on that basis, there is considerable checking up to be done in Canada. If immigration is to be carried on in this way it must be planned and integrated so that each province will be in a position to absorb its share.
I am going to speak for a moment about my own end of the country. I think it is about time the Canadian government endeavoured to organize the economy of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in such a way as to keep in this country the 15,000 Canadians we have been losing from the mari-times to the United States each year for the past fifteen or twenty years. That statement was made recently in the Nova Scotia legislature; it is not something I am throwing around. If we are to have a long-range immigration programme to bring people into this country, one of the first responsibilities of the government is to check our resources province by province; to develop those resources; to devise some method whereby our own poeple can be placed at work before more people are brought in and dumped into the ranks of the unemployed.
The situation in the maritimes is serious. There is plenty of land there, thousands of vacant farms throughout New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The rehabilitation of those farms is necessary. People in Nova Scotia would go on farms, provided that they could get some assistance. Therefore one of the first obligations of the government in relation to a long-range immigration programme is to check our resources province by province, so that the people who come in will be placed where they may be able to make their best contribution.
In the matter of immigration, Canada is faced with the problem that today we have only two provinces in which there is any industry. The centralization of industry in Ontario and Quebec is one of the things that will retard immigration, and until there is decentralization and the establishment of at least secondary or subsidiary industries both east and west to take up what the basic industries are producing, and immigration

handled accordingly, in such a way as to balance the economy, we shall not get very far with it.
Just here I should like to say a few words about something said during this debate by both the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Stkey) and the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Han-sell). I believe they made a statement which does not do very much credit to a member of this house. That statement is to be found at page 2702 of Hansard for May 2. The hon. member for Trinity was speaking, and had this to say:
I am one who agrees with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who stated yesterday that Britain is an occupied country, occupied by an alien government. I am prepared to say that socialism in the years to come will add to Britain's many other burdens which have resulted from the war. We must now be ready to receive the torch from these people, to accept the "know-how," and to give them the freedom which they will be denied at home.
Coming from a Conservative member particularly, I believe this is a statement that should be expunged from the record, because it is an insult to over eleven million English people who exercised their right under democracy to elect the kind of government that is today functioning in Britain. I should like to call to the attention of the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Macleod-


Mr. HLYNKA:: The hon. member for Macleod did not say that.


Clarence Gillis: He is quoted here as having said it.


Anthony Hlynka: Read what he said.


Clarence Gillis: He had better read what the hon. member for Trinity said. I have here a clipping from the Ottawa Journal, which is not a socialist newspaper, quoting something it thought was good enough to take from the New York Times. The caption 'is "Courage and Liberation," and this is from the Journal of February 26, 1947:
A noble tribute to Britain comes from the New York Times . . .
"As a power, exercising dominion by force of arms, Britain has indeed grown weaker. She cannot now impose her wishes upon unwilling peoples. But this is not the whole picture- she no longer wishes to. The oak of British democracy, rooted in Magna Carta and the bill of rights, thrusting out new branches in the reform bills of the nineteenth century, in equal suffrage, in social security legislation, resisting the tempests of two world wars, has not ceased to grow. We may quarrel with the economic theories of the labour government. We cannot dispute that it is government of, by and for the people, and that it stands for a national conscience."

And further on:
"An old empire, in its imperial phase, is at its twilight. But the brave spirit which created it need not die ... In its hour of darkness it breathes courage and liberation."
That certainly is not a statement from socialists; it is a statement from a Conservative paper, clipped from the New York Times, another conservative paper, which is at least fair enough-


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a Democratic paper, is it not?


Clarence Gillis: Well, it is more or less independent, but it was reprinted in the Ottawa Journal. Without any further words from me, that slaps the hon. member for Trinity in the face for the small, weak, anaemic statement he made in reference to a government that was elected' by a majority of the people in Britain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have listened to this debate for some time with a good deal of interest. I must say I support the statement of the previous speaker in reference to the present government of Great Britain and his criticism of the statement of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Skey). In one sense, however, they were quite correct, Britain is an occupied country, occupied by an idea whose time has arrived, and which no force can stop.
I was pleased the other day to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announce the government's immigration policy. From now on, in order to answer the many letters I receive in this connection it will not be necessary for me to put together a lot of pieces in order to inform my constituents as to the government's immigration policy. We now have a clear statement, and I am sure that, on the whole, the policy will meet with general acceptance in the house and throughout the country. It was the usual carefully worded, cautious statement, and at the present time I see very little to criticize in connection with it. But I believe it will take a period of time after that policy is put into effect before we can correctly assess it.
Much has been said this evening on this question of immigration, and I am going to be quite brief. Personally, I think our first obligation, as far as immigration is concerned, is to those people, regardless of their nationality, who have suffered because of their opposition to nazism. We must first of all give consideration to admitting those who have demonstrated by their past activities their loyality to democratic principles-and again I say, "regardless of nationality."
Immigration Act
It has always been noticeable to me throughout the years that these racial antagonisms grow when people are at distances from one another, and when they fail to know and understand one another. In the district in which I live there are people of many races: Italian, Polish, German, central Europeans and people of British stock; and these animosities disappear when they get to know one another and work together for some common objective. I have noticed in my experience the wonderful effect of working in cooperative organizations, trade unions and farmer organizations, where they seem to overcome these racial animosities, and build up a spirit of fellowship, by working for a common objective.
Our top priority should be the victims of the nazi concentration and work camps. Before passing on, I wish to urge upon the minister that the many thousands of British veterans who served in this country during the war, and who realize what a great country we have, should not be overlooked. They and their dependents should be brought as soon as possible as immigrants to this country.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said, and correctly, that an immigration policy, to be successful, had to be tied to some planning and development of our natural resources. So far as our immediate immigration policy is concerned, I am all for doing all we can to relieve the suffering of those victims of tyranny in Europe, for bringing them out, possibly to stay with relatives, or to live under temporary conditions until permanently settled.
Then, so far as our long-term policy is concerned, I am quite sure it will not be successful unless it is tied to a planned development of our natural resources. I noticed that one or two speakers in the Progressive Conservative party referred to that, although perhaps they avoided the words "planned1 policy", or avoided the word "planning." I believe, if this policy is to be successful, the government must take into its confidence large representative groups of people. We have to build up in them a spirit of working with a common objective, as we did during the war. We have to give local communities and the larger districts-the provinces, and Canada as a whole- a common objective to work for in the future.
I believe the government should take into its confidence veterans organizations, labour organizations, farmer organizations and employer organizations, and tell them what it is doing from day to day. It should also tell them what it proposes to do, and should seek their advice, thereby so far as possible enmeshing the people of this country in the
Immigration Act

putting into effect of the government's policies. If more of that is done we shall remove in some cases the causes of artificial differences, and give the people something to live for. I am convinced that the more the people are enmeshed in the administration of their own affairs, the better will be the development of this country.
Before concluding, may I say that when the minister speaks I suggest that he give the house more detail on this question of immigration. He should tell us where the government intends to locate immigration officers, the type of staff which will be used in those offices and how it will function, the procedure of selection, the forms to be filled out and the questionnaires used. It should tell us how it intends to make certain that no unsuitable person will enter Canada, the type of medical examination anticipated, and such things as financial standing, and matters of that kind. More than that, I believe that in a matter of immigration, in which all the people of Canada are concerned-and they are concerned in a successful immigration policy and the development of a successful immigration scheme- the government should make a periodical report, not only to the house but to the Canadian people, as to the success they are having in the development of the immigration policy, and in the distribution of these people throughout the country.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about the bill under discussion, a bill which, as presented to the house, still permits a measure of discrimination. I am hopeful that when we reach the committee stage the remarks made by various speakers in the debate will cause the minister to consider an amendment to the bill to remove this discrimination. However the bill is a great improvement on the present legislation and, because of that, while still hoping the minister will see fit to amend it, I intend to support it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, I wish for a few minutes to discuss this measure and, before I shall have finished, I crave your permission to bring one particular case to the attention of the minister.
During this debate we have heard much about doing things without discrimination as to race, colour, creed, sex and so on. These are not new words, nor is the expression a new one. It was adopted in the Atlantic charter by two of the greatest men of this age; it was followed at San Francisco, where the excellent representatives of this country attended. But I could not help wondering, as I sat listening, if all of us who use this expression, and affirm it, have been quite honest in so doing.
(Mr. Herridge.l
Idealism is a wonderful thing. No individual or no nation will get very far unless it holds these ideals high. But that is not the last word, because we live in a practical age. It is easy to say that if we all applied the golden rule to one another we would have no difficulty whatsoever. But unfortunately, sir, two of the most moving factors in human conduct continue to be fear and selfishness. As human beings we are far from perfect in our relationships with one another, or as nation to nation, continent to continent or block to block.
So I come back to this expression, "without discrimination as to race, colour and creed'. It is a wonderful thing to say. It sounds well.
I am not suggesting that anyone in the house has spoken, so to speak, with his tongue in his cheek. We speak about the coloured races and, with respect to them, we say that we want their immigration limited because they will not assimilate.
Let us consider our Jewish friends. I am proud to say that in the place from which I come there are many of them, and among them are some of my most intimate friends. I have discussed this problem with them. They say to me-and truthfully-"You say we are clannish, that we herd together". I say, "Yes, you do". The man I have in mind is an able man, belonging to my own profession, and he says to me, "I want to ask you this question: Why do we do it? The answer is: Because you compel us to do it".
Let us of the white race-and they are of the white race, of course-when we complain about others not being assimilable, admit that it is not the fault of those races. It is our fault that they are not assimilable into our life. I know I am not going to make any friends by what I say now, but I say that those people who rise to heights of oratory and accuse the government or anyone else of discrimination in matters of colour are not honest in doing so unless they are prepared to have their daughters marry these coloured people. That is tough, but it is realistic and it is absolutely
true.	.
I turn now to the question of Chinese immigration, and I wish to say a word for my Chinese friends in the province from which I come. They are splendid citizens. You can go into any small town in Alberta and you will find that the Chinese with the store or restaurant is perhaps the most generous giver to charities, the largest subscriber to victory loans or to any community effort which you will find. In the city in which I live they are highly respected. Look over the crime annals of this country and you will find very few Chinese convicted of serious crimes. Just search your memory and you will find that

Immigration Act
there are few indeed. But I am not suggesting for one moment that, because of that, our doors should be opened wide to large Chinese immigration. I say that, not because of prejudice with respect to race or colour; I say it. because I do not believe it to be in the interest, selfish if you like, of Canadians living in this country. These statements are at least frank and, as I say, they will not do me any good in many places.
I go a step farther. We must stop somewhere. We must admit that what we said in San Francisco means that we shall open our gates wide and lose sovereignty in choosing those people we suggest may come to our shores. We must do one thing or the other. I am still one of those people who, having regard to the interest of this country, think we should be just a little choosy in naming the persons, races if you like, that we ask to come to this country. I do not think this problem is entirely an immigration problem. Take the Chinese, for example. Speaking only for the part of the country where I know them, I know they have succeeded. Why? Because they are prepared to work any number of hours a day in order to get themselves along. My hon. friends over here talk about planning, and I am going to have a word to say about it. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) had something to say about that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think you will be befojre I have finished, because I will convert you. The hon. member said a moment ago that we in this party had not mentioned the word "planning". I had not noticed that and I accept his word for it. Certainly we have not and I trust that we never shall mention that word "planning" the way that they use it. The word "planning" is a good word; it is an old word. Is there any business in the world, be it privately or corporately owned, that does not plan? Is the budget in this House of Commons anything other than a planning for the future? Are the estimates which we shall soon discuss anything other than planning the country's finances for the coming year? Nothing in this world succeeds without some planning, but the planning that hon. gentlemen to my left want is planning done by their little group to operate the lives of everyone in this country. That form of planning we do not want and I trust we never shall. Now I have dealt with their planning.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: You did not even come near to it.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I hear a young hon. gentleman over here say that I did not even come near to it. He is half my age, but I will shoot him or I will run him and I will beat him.
To come back to what I was trying to say before I was so agreeably interrupted by my hon. friend to my left, you cannot consider your immigration problem without considering your economic problem. By that I mean hours of work and all that sort of thing. Some people are willing to work long hours, and it is to their credit that they do so in order to benefit themselves in this world. I think you will find that nearly everyone who has succeeded in this world has not paid much attention to an hourly day or an hourly week of some proportion. My hon. friends over here keep saying, "Let us cut the hours shorter and shorter," and at the same time they want to welcome people who are prepared to disregard daily and weekly hours completely. There is a gap there which I should like someone over here to fill in after I have finished.
I agree with the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) and other hon. members on this side who have stated that we are having great difficulty in the operation of our present regulations. In other words, J. think the difficulty is technical. Lest anyone should misunderstand me, may I pay a tribute to Mr. Jolliffe, superintendent of immigration, who has been kindness itself to me and has given every assistance he can. I have been dealing with him in connection with a case, as has the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The facts are comparatively simple and I am going to give names.
There are two people by. the name of Heimers who had lived for a long time in the city from which I come. This married couple worked for Picardy's, which is one of those lunch places that we have, which is owned and controlled in the effete east, which is how you describe Toronto when you want to be polite to them, which I rarely do. I am going to ask the minister to take a note of this case, and I want three ministers to take a note of it because it involves three different departments. These people went to Germany in 1939 to visit the parents of the husband, who lived in a town, the name of which I cannot remember at the moment. With them went a girl by the name of Scotland whose parents I do know very well. She was on her way to Switzerland to study at a university there. Heimers had return tickets both by sea and by rail and were on two months' leave from the positions
Immigration Act

which they held with Picardy's, having saved up their holidays throughout the years. While they were in Germany, war broke out. They endeavoured in every way they could to get home, even consulting the Swiss diplomatic people and seeing everyone with whom they could get in touch. Unfortunately, in one of our bombing raids the Scotland girl, who was not allowed to go to Switzerland, was killed by one of our planes going over Germany.
This man is a naturalized British subject. The wife's parents are naturalized British subjects and live outside Winnipeg. She came with her parents to Canada when a babe three months of age, and she was under the impression that she had been born here. They were arrested -by the gestapo and served a term in gestapo camps. He was beaten and received all the usual treatment that prisoners get in a. gestapo camp. He was there officially because he had sought to leave Germany and had failed to join a troop, the name of which has escaped me for the moment. He escaped from camp just before the Americans came. He escaped with his wife and nurse who helped them to get out, and he met the United States troops. I have copies of letters from United States officers saying that in the skirmish that then took place twenty-four Americans were killed and that, had Heimers not given them information, their casualties would have been numbered in the hundreds.
Somebody has done something with respect to this man that I cannot find out. I have recommendations as to his character from the police in the occupation zone, from United States officers. The reason given that he was not allowed to return was that his wife had not. told the truth as to her citizenship and that she was, in fact, a Russian. She came here a babe in arms at three months of age. Her parents were naturalized and she thought she was too. She travelled on a Canadian passport, which they still keep in shape. While the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I were dealing with Mr. Jolliffe and receiving sympathetic consideration, we suddenly learned that the case was out of his hands. Why? Some other department of government is starting in to cancel this man's naturalization, and it has been cancelled, although lie has not even been heard. He is told now that he can go to Berlin.-I think it is Berlin-about the end of July and make his appeal. [DOT]
I am not talking about people of whom I do not know something; although I do not know them personally, I know a great many of their friends. This man worked and organized one of those displaced persons camps for the Americans from May until July, resigned

his job and started to go home. He cannot get to England. We are worrying about bringing people in from here and there. Let me in fairness say this. There may be something in this case which I do not know. The reason I do not know it is not because I have not tried to find out.
There we find these two people, Canadians if there ever were Canadians, imprisoned by the gestapo on account of a lack of sympathy with the nazi cause, and we cannot get them home. The man's naturalization is cancelled wilhout his even being heard. With great respect, I want to know how this government or any agency of this government can cancel this man's naturalization without giving him an opportunity to be heard. An appeal at some indefinite time and at some indefinite place is just not good enough. I leave that.
I have not mentioned it in this house, although we have been here for two and a half months, but in conversation with my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, we thought perhaps it was time that it was brought to the minister's attention. Let me again repeat that I have received no discourtesy whatever from the department, noth- [DOT] ing but- kindness and generosity in Mr. Jolliffe's treatment of me and, I am sure, of my hon. friend as well.
I now turn to the broad policy of immigration and I shall be only a moment or two. We heard the policy announced the other day and1 everyone has been loud in his praise of it,
I am sure I would join that happy and cheering throng if I knew exactly what it meant.
I can understand the short-range plan because that is simple. We are simply enlarging the field of relatives allowed1 in. We are all for that. I am quite sure that no one will deny that.
But what is this great long-range policy that we have heard of? I know it covers pages; but here is what it is in a sentence: We shall take what the country can absorb. That is it in one sentence. There is just nothing more to it. With that I am in hearty agreement. But- and here is where my planner friend, the hon. member for Kootenay West, might even agree with me, I think we should have something more than the mere statement, with which we will all agree, that we shall take as many as the absorptive capacity of the country can take. What is the absorptive capacity of the country? Is it one thousand, two thousand, ten thousand, one hundred' thousand, two hundred thousand a year? I have not the least idea what it means and perhaps the minister would go into more detail when he closes the debate. I sincerely trust that he will, because no one will dispute that this country should have all the immigration that

Immigration Act
its absorptive capacity will permit-and that, we are told by people on both sides of the house, is an immigration policy showing great vision! It is just a trite phrase, a truism. It is meaningless, unless we learn from the minister who operates this department just what that means in numbers and in the type of persons that we are to absorb.
I want to point out-and in saying this I appreciate the difficulties of the minister and of the government at this time-that the last large immigration we had was back in the 1900's. I knew something about that, because I worked on a railroad widening dump on an extra gang with a lot of people who had come in at that time. But in those days we had free homesteads and our immigration came largely to settle on free land. Instead of people reading figures to me out of books and telling me how many millions of acres of arable land we have in western Canada, I want somebody to tell me where they are. I want somebody to tell me how close they are to a railway. I want somebody to tell me how much brush and rock there are on them. We are not living today back in the 19O0's. We have an entirely different situation to meet, and it seems to me that the immigration which we now seek must go largely into industry in this country. This confronts us with an entirely different problem from that which we met back in the 1900's.
Therefore may I close by saying that I am glad the Chinese Exclusion Act is being repealed. I thoroughly believe that at some day this house must admit that the problem of British Columbia with respect to orientals is not a provincial matter but a dominion matter, in the same way that I say, with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia has ceased to be a provincial matter and is something which must be regarded as for the benefit of the whole country.


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and I do not always see eye to eye; but, as he has already indicated, it was by agreement between the two of us that we decided to raise this afternoon or this evening the case to which he has already made reference. He has given the particulars in considerable detail and little more needs to be added; but I would join with him in urging the minister, either through his own department or by whatever necessary contact needs to be made with two other departments, to try to have this case settled as quickly as possible.
If he looks up the record he may find one -slight discrepancy in the account which was
given by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). I set it right so that the minister will not be able to tell my friend that he was wrong. It has to do with the status of Mrs. Heimers who did become a Canadian by the naturalization of her parents and who was a Canadian until she married. At the time she married, her husband had not yet been naturalized. He was naturalized later, but that naturalization did not cover her. She did not know that when she went to Germany. I emphasize the point, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has already done, that these people, possessing the German language, Mr. Heimers being of German descent, endured a great deal of persecution, as one can imagine, because of their refusal to cooperate with the German authorities while they were in that country during the war.
It does seem to me that the appeal which the hon. member has made and which I support, should receive thorough consideration in the hope that action might be taken at an early date. As he has indicated, our contacts have been with three departments, the Department of Immigration, the Department of External Affairs and the Department of the Secretary of State. I hold in my hand a letter which I received a few days ago from the acting under-secretary of state for external affairs, dated April 25, referring to this case and saying in part;
Mr. Heimers requested that his case be heard by a commission of inquiry.
The letter explains that a formal notice that his naturalization was to be revoked had been served on Mr. Heimers. I quote further:
This request was granted, but the office of the registrar of Canadian citizenship advised by telephone today that the case would not be heard until August, 1947, which is the next sitting of the commission.
In the meantime, according to letters which I have received from members of the family here in Canada, Mr. and Mrs. Heimers have been moved from one camp to another, and their plight is really as pitiable as that of any of the displaced persons about whom so much has been rightly said during the course of this debate. These people, however, are Canadians, simply away from home.
I might explain that my connection with the case arises from the fact that Mrs. Heimers has a sister in Winnipeg whom I know, and they have two brothers who served in the Canadian forces during the war, one in the army and one in the air force. All these things together make it seem a pretty pitiable case, and I do hope that the action which my hon. friend and I have taken in raising this
Immigration Act

matter in the house after so many months of contact with the departments concerned will result, in effect, in consideration being given to it at an early day.
While I am on my feet, I just want to add my voice to the expressions that have been given with regard to the progress we are making in eliminating racial discrimination from our statute books. I use that word advisedly. We are making progress. But the point that some of us have been trying to make is that the government will not get in the eyes of the world, if you like, the credit that it deserves for such steps as it has taken until it goes at least one little step farther. As the minister knows, until recently there were on the statute books of Canada three measures effecting discrimination against the Chinese. There was, first of all, the Chinese Immigration Act. Then there was the order in council denying to Chinese in Canada the right to become naturalized unless they got the permission of their government. Then there is order in council P.C. 2115. Of these three measures, two are now to go by the board. The bill before us, when it becomes law, will repeal the Chinese Immigration Act, and the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced the revocation of the order in council respecting naturalization. But that leaves upon the statute books of Canada order in council P.C. 2115, which still discriminates against people of Canada on racial lines.
I hold in my hand a copy of today's Toronto Globe and Mail. One perhaps should be quoting from the Winnipeg Free Press when he is addressing the government. Their pages are full of advice along these lines, but I quote this because it is current. The Globe and Mail takes the position that the government should surely go one step farther and give to all persons residing in Canada the same rights or impose against them the same restrictions without drawing a racial line. I quote the significant sentence from the Globe and Mail editorial:
There should be no restrictions on human beings of any race or national origin living in Canada which do not apply ,with equal weight and effectivness to all.
I hope that when the minister replies in this debate he will tell us whether any consideration is being given to the repeal of P.C. 2115.


James Allison Glen: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


James Allison Glen: This afternoon the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) was speaking along the same line as the hon. member is now. I asked him this question: Did he
[Mr. Knowles.}
advocate the repeal of order in council 2115 and thus bring all immigrants under order in council 695? I asked him then: Would he then have immigration under order in council 695 with the clause regarding Asiatic immigration deleted from it? And his answer was, Yes. Is that the hon. gentleman's answer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. I would make definitely the same answer. There is no reference to Asiatics in P.C. 695.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was not the question asked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The reference to Asiatics is in P.C. 2115. If I have misunderstood the minister's question I should be glad to have him put it again.


James Allison Glen: The last sentence of P.C. 695 read's as follows:
The provisions of this order in council shall not apply to immigrants of any Asiatic race.
I asked the hon. member for Mackenzie if all immigration then would be brought under order in council 695 and whether he was in favour of the deletion of the clause regarding Asiatic immigration and his answer was, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry; I did not understand the minister's question. My answer to both parts of it is, yes, and I hope that when the minister replies at the close of this debate he will tell us what the attitude of the government now is toward P.C. 2115; whether they will consider revoking it, and if not whether the government can suggest some further move, some compromise step, if you will, that might go a little bit farther toward removing these racial discriminations within our own country.


Mr. LEWIS MENARY (Wellington North):: I wish to say a few words on this immigration bill. I come from a riding which, during the last war, sent as many men per capita as any rural riding in the Dominion of Canada. There are many families in my riding who sent four boys, and that is a record to be proud of. The population of my riding is mostly British, although some are Polish, Ukrainian, Swedish, Norwegian and German; and I must say that out of this great melting-pot they have emerged as true Canadians.
Last spring I had the pleasure of attending a reception in one township largely populated' by Mennonites, and I was struck by the loyalty of these boys and the number enlisted as they came forward to receive their gifts presented by the township in appreciation of their sacrifices for Canada. I remember well speaking to one of these settlers; he was the father

Immigration Act
of one of these boys. He told me that his father stole out of Germany at the age of seventeen, came to Canada, took up a bush lot, and out of the forest hewed a home for himself and his family. That these people have contributed much to our country, cannot be disputed. One needs only to drive through this district to see the fine barns and houses which have been erected.
I would ask the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) if offices where prospective immigrants may apply will be set up in England, Scotland and Ireland as well as in other countries mentioned. In this connection we should not forget that the Norwegians, the Swedes and the Danes blend well with our people. True, we must help with the displaced people of Europe, but we must see to it that we are not bringing to our shores those who are communistic in any way. That is the real danger. I am sure that the government will guard against this. We must build in Canada a nation of truly democratic people so that we may become a great nation. We have plenty of room and many vacant farms. I think an immigration policy along selective lines is the one for Canada. We want more people to use our products, to work in the factories and on the farms.


James Horace King: May I point out that when the minister speaks, he will close the debate.


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, I must say, in
the first instance, that I think this debate on immigration has been really worth while. I am indeed glad to have the expression of opinion which has been given from all sides of the house with regard to it. To me, the one surprising thing was the unanimity, the agreement that there was about the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on May 1. That statement was, of course, the result of constant and close attention given to the many problems arising. It was felt-and I think all will agree-that it should come with the authority of the Prime Minister, and he made the statement for the government.
When opening the debate on this bill I did not speak at any great length, because I was of the opinion then, as I am now, that when I was dealing with a bill of this kind my duty was to confine myself to the terms of the bill, and that a general discussion of immigration on that bill was entirely out of order; and I expressed myself to that effect. But during the course of the debate it has broadened out, and has become a debate on immigration in general. Therefore I shall have to reply
to many of the things which have been said, hoping that when we come to the bill we shall be able to confine ourselves to it.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) was critical of my attitude in that respect. But I think he will agree with me that the attitude I took then was the proper one in the circumstances with regard to a bill such as this. I said then that the effects of the bill and the provisions of it I would be able to deal with in committee when we got to it; and I hope I shall be able now to deal with the criticism and the suggestions that have been made by hon. members, and do so within the time limit this time, although I may have to ask the consent of the house to extend it.
First of all, I would point out that when hon. members are talking about policy with regard to immigration, sometimes that term is loosely used, and what they are really asking for are amendments to the regulations under which our immigration policy is carried out. For the purposes of the record I think I should state now just the steps which have been taken with regard to immigration. From 1930 on, as everyone knows, there has been very little immigration. In that year, 1930, the Bennett government passed order in council P.C. 2115. That is the one which has been discussed a great deal by hon. gentlemen of the C.C.F. party. That order provides as follows:
From and after the 16th August, 1930, until otherwise ordered, the landing in Canada of any immigrant of any Asiatic race is hereby prohibited except as hereinafter provided:
The immigration officer in charge may admit any immigrant who otherwise complies with the provisions of the Immigration Act, if it is shown to his satisfaction that such immigrant is-
The wife or unmarried child under eighteen years of age of any Canadian citizen legally admitted to and resident in Canada, who is in a position to receive and care for his dependents. Provided-
And this proviso is the one that is a matter of concern at this moment.
-that this regulation shall not apply to the nationals of any country in regard to which there is in operation a law, a special treaty, or agreement, or convention regulating immigration.
This order in council contained a proviso, as will be noted, which made it not applicable to persons of Chinese race, their admission being governed by the Chinese Immigration Act which we now have before us.
On March 21, 1931, the Bennett government passed order in council P.C. 695, which set forth the provisions under which immigrants may land in Canada and which drastically reduced immigration into the country. Certain amendments have been made by the present
Immigration Act

government. The consequence of the passing of P.C. 695 and P.C. 2115 was to diminish immigration to a trickle, and the machinery for immigration was greatly reduced. When the war came in 1939, naturally all immigration from the continent of Europe ceased. The position in Europe today, two years after the war, is still chaotic. Travel is difficult and, in many cases, impossible. Frontier difficulties are extremely great, and the immigration authorities have found great difficulty in reestablishing their inspectional facilities on the continent.
The first duty of the government was to arrange for the return of service men and their dependents. This was accomplished in a shorter period than was ever contemplated, and the government was immediately faced with requests for the entrance of many people resident in Europe who had relatives in this country. Nine months after the finish of hostilities, the government widened the door to permit the entry of certain classes of relatives of these residents of Canada. The government believed that it could give relief to the anxieties of many of our residents and citizens by permitting the entry of their relatives, and that these should have a priority for entry from abroad. Further, these new immigrants could be accommodated with their relatives, and thus would not render more difficult the extreme shortage of housing, because at that time the housing problem was acute. Therefore order in council P.C. 2071 was passed on May 28, 1946, adding to the classes of immigrants who might enter Canada:
The father or mother, the unmarried son or daughter eighteen years of age or over, the unmarried brother or sister, the orphan nephew or niece under sixteen years of age, of any person legally admitted to and resident in Canada who is in a position to receive and care for such relatives.
The term "orphan" used in this clause means a child 'bereaved of both parents.
Since that date, following representations made by many people in Canada and after investigation by officials, the government decided to enlarge the provisions of the regulations with regard to the admissible classes of relatives and also to include and provide for the admission of other categories of occupational groups whose entry was desirable. Accordingly on 30th January of this year P.C. 371 was passed, providing for the admission of the wife, unmarried son, daughter, brother or sister, father or mother, widowed daughter or sister with or without unmarried children under eighteen years of age, orphan nephew' or niece under eighteen years of age, of any person legally admitted to and resident in Canada who is in a position to receive

and care for such relatives. The term "orphan" used in this clause means a child bereaved of both parents.
This order in council further provided for the admission of (a) an agriculturist having sufficient means to farm in Canada; (b) an agriculturist entering Canada to farm, when destined to a father, father-in-law, son, son-in-law, brother, brother-in-law, uncle or nephew engaged in agriculture as his principal occupation, who is in a position to receive such immigrant and establish him on a farm; (c) a farm labourer entering Canada to engage in assured farm employment; and (d) a person experienced in mining, lumbering or logging, entering Canada to engage in assured employment in any one of such industries. The last order in council was presented by the Prime Minister when he made his statement the other day. It substitutes paragraph 3 and makes the following as the regulations under which immigration will be coming to Canada. It provides for the husband or wife, the son, the daughter, the brother or sister together with husband or wife and unmarried children, if any; the father or mother, the orphan nephew or niece under twenty-one years of age of any person legally resident in Canada who is in a position to receive and care for such relatives. The term "orphan" used in this clause means a child bereaved of both parents; and 5: a person entering Canada for the purpose of marriage to a legal resident thereof, provided that the prospective husband is able to maintain his intended wife.
In order to cope with what undoubtedly would be greatly increased immigration, it was recognized that steps had to be taken immediately to set up inspectional services in Europe. This was no easy matter. Suitable accommodation had to be obtained, and what would have been simple in pre-war days became a major problem in war-ravaged Europe. There were further delays in the necessary negotiations with the different governments in the countries where these inspectional facilities had to be set up, but by the end of 1946 those facilities were established in France, Belgium and Holland, and facilities for examination were established by Canadian missions in Norway, Denmark, Greece and Portugal. Also facilities are now available for Switzerland and Czechoslovakia, and it is expected that arrangements will be made for Poland shortly. With every possible dispatch the department is completing the administrative details to cope with the large immigration created by these wider and amended regulations.

Immigration Act
I was much interested in listening Friday evening to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hlynka) give an account of his recent experiences in Europe. The hon. gentleman probably left Germany before our inspectional teams went into that country, and the other evening he asked what arrangements if any had been made by this government with regard to refugees in that country. Prior to the war, under its mandate the IGCR dealt *with persons who fled from their country of residence or citizenship before the second world war for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political oppression. During the second world war the mandate was extended to include additional displaced persons; persons who, as a result of the action of the nazi or fascist regimes, were deported from or obliged to leave their country of nationality or former residence for forced labour or other causes; persons who have resided in Germany or Austria, being of Jewish origin, or foreigners or stateless persons victims of nazi persecution. The mandate does not include nationals of enemy countries, volkdeutsche, prisoners of war in allied hands, war criminals, traitors, persons who have assisted enemy forces, and those who fled into Germany to avoid falling into allied hands.
The hon. gentleman asked, why not set up immigration offices in Germany, Austria and Italy? There would be no advantage in setting up. regular immigration inspectional offices in those countries at this time, because prospective immigrants could not proceed to such points of examination. Those enemy countries are under military control, and residents cannot move freely from place to place. The department now has two inspectional teams in Germany examining displaced persons whose cases have been approved. The intergovernmental committee on refugees locates these prospective immigrants, obtains travel permits, et cetera, and transfers them to convenient centres for examination by the examination teams. These teams will also operate in Austria, and possibly in Italy in the same way.
On Friday the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) made reference to persons of German ethnic origin, but who are not German nationals, who are now in occupied territory. It is quite true that the IGCR is not empowered to deal with these people. The Canadian government, however, is prepared to accept as immigrants those of this category who are otherwise qualified for admission to our country. Canadian immigration officers have been directed to facilitate their entry. It is. of course, difficult under
present circumstances to take effective action. We are, however, doing what we can to solve this problem.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister to make a statement in reference to immigrants from Yugoslavia and Greece?


James Allison Glen: Yugoslavia and Greece are not alien enemy countries, and therefore they will fall into the same category. As far as Greece is concerned, we may have immigration now, and we have offices in Greece in order to examine applicants there. We have no inspections! facilities set up in Jugoslavia, and therefore I cannot deal with them now.
At this stage, perhaps I should refer to some questions I was asked, before dealing with the bill. I was asked by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), what is to be the effect of control on Asiatic and Chinese immigration? The hon. member suggested that P.C. 2115 is not enough, and that it could be repealed. That is true; it could be repealed, but I would refer the hon. gentleman to the statement made by the Prime Minister, in which at page 2646 of Hansard he said:
I wish to state quite definitely that, apart from the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act and the revocation of order in council P.C. 1378 of June 17, 1931, regarding naturalization, the government has no intention of removing the existing regulations respecting Asiatic immigration unless and until alternative measures of effective control have been worked out. Canada recognizes the right of all persons seeking to become permanent residents. We claim precisely the same right for our country.
I think that answers that question.
The other question the hon. member asked was, "I would like to ask the Prime Minister what has happened to that treaty"-meaning the Chinese immigration treaty-"and why has the treaty not been concluded. Is the matter still open, and is it intended to conclude such a treaty?"
The answer is that up to the present it has not been found possible to reach agreement on the basis of a treaty that would be satisfactory to both countries. The matter is still open for further negotiation. And I think the sentence I have already read with regard to the Canadian government's being prepared at any time to enter into negotiations with these countries for special agreements for the control and admission of immigrants on a basis of complete equality and reciprocity answers that question.
The other question the hon. gentleman asked was, "Does the present order in council, in the light of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, mean that all the wives and families of those Canadian Chinese now resident in Canada shall be permitted to come to Canada
27S0
Immigration Act

when this bill is repealed and the order in council is in force as the only means of governing Chinese immigration?"
The answer to that is that the wives, and the children under 18 years of age, of Canadian citizens, can come to Canada.
Then the hon. gentleman asked another question regarding the influx of these numbers and what it would mean, and whether they would all be in this year. I will reply to that later.
I should like now to deal with the question of what it has meant in the way of extension of the regulations by way of immigration. We have admitted to Canada, since the war ended, up to December 1946, immigrants to the number of 77,693, or equal to those admitted during the five-year period from 1935 to 1939; and this during the time when we were in the throes of transition from war to peace. I take it that these regulations will probably be sufficient to cover more immigrants than those for whom there is transportation available.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Does the
minister mean the average of those years from 1935 to 1939, or the whole period?


James Allison Glen: The total of those admitted
during that five-year period.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: Has the minister a
breakdown of that?


James Allison Glen: I have not, but it can be
obtained.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That is a
total?


James Allison Glen: Yes, that is a total.
The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), after reading the provisions of the first two orders in council, expressed what seems to be the opinion of many, when he said that the minister had surely opened the door.
I should like now to deal with the bill before the house, because, after all, that is the only matter before us with which the house is called upon to deal.
According to the census of 1941, there is in Canada a total Chinese population of 34,627. Of these, there are 30,713 males and 3,914 females. They are settled by provinces as
follows:
Prince Edward Island	 45
Nova Scotia	 373
New Brunswick	 152
Quebec	 2,378
Ontario	 6,143
Manitoba	 1,248
Saskatchewan	 2,545
Alberta	 3,122
British Columbia	 18,619
Yukon Territory	 3
IMr. Glen.]
The Chinese male population, married, is 23,556; the Chinese male population, single, is 5,866; the Chinese female population, married, is 1,177, and the Chinese female population, single, is 2,569. The separated, divorced or widowed number 1,459. There are 6,694 persons of the Chinese race born in Canada, who are therefore citizens of Canada, and 2,055 persons naturalized. This makes a total of 8,749, leaving approximately
26.000	of Chinese origin in Canada who are not Canadian citizens.
I do not develop these figures, and for two reasons:	first, I have not been able to
obtain a breakdown of those who are Canadian citizens according to conjugal status and sex and, second, because one would be more or less venturing into the realm of speculation by further development of the known figures.
However it has been estimated-and the house must, understand that the following are purely estimates; the census of 1941 records that there are 2,202 females in the age group under nineteen years of age. This reduces the number of persons of the Chinese race who would be eligible to bring wives and children to Canada, under P.C. 2115, to a maximum of 6,547.
Of the 6,547 I have just mentioned-
(1)	There are men who are married in Canada and whose wives reside with them. These are estimated at 300.
(2)	There are men who brought their families to Canada before 1930. They are estimated at 700.
(3)	There are Canadian-born males who will marry Canadian-born females, estimated at 2,000.
These three groups represent an estimated
3.000	persons. If these figures are substantially correct there are in Canada about 3,547 Canadian citizens of the Chinese race who will be eligible to bring their wives and families to Canada. One must take into consideration also that some of this number are not yet old enough to marry.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked the question whether a single person could proceed to China, marry there, and then bring his wife to Canada, under the provisions of order in council P.C. 2115.
The answer is yes, provided that the man is a Canadian citizen.
A second question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver South was as to whether it would be permissible to bring to Canada "picture brides." The answer is, no.

Immigration Act


Howard Charles Green: What about the Chinese in Canada now who becomes naturalized from this date forward? He can then bring his wife and children in?


James Allison Glen: Yes, he can. I would point out that of the 26,000 who still remain in Canada, who are not citizens, and therefore do not obtain the benefit of this legislation until they become citizens, it will be a purely speculative effort to state how many may become citizens of Canada. The hon. member's guess would be just as good as mine in that respect.


Howard Charles Green: How many of them are now married?


James Allison Glen: Of the 26,000?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


James Allison Glen: All I have here are the census records, and the figures I have already given. The number of persons who would be eligible to bring wives and children to Canada is now reduced to a maximum of 6,547.


Howard Charles Green: The minister should have the figures of married males in Canada, and of married females in Canada.


James Allison Glen: I gave the figure of 23,556, for the Chinese male population, married.


Howard Charles Green: And only 1,177 females
married?


James Allison Glen: Yes, 1,177 females are married.


James Horace King: I suggest that the hon. member wait until we reach the committee stage to ask his questions of the minister.


James Allison Glen: As I said, the hon. member's guess in these matters is just as good as mine.
If the proportion of the estimate which I have given would be eligible if the Chinese act were repealed meant approximately one-third, then it would mean one-third of 26,000 might take advantage of the law and become Canadian citizens. The families such citizens would have in China and the children under eighteen years of age are unknown, and therefore the number must, as I have already said, be in the realm of speculation.
I should like to address myself to the remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) and those made today by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When the bill was first introduced on February 11 the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar used pretty strong language in referring to what he termed1 "hoax" and "hypocrisy". As reported on page 331 of Hansard, he asked that P.C. 2115 be repealed and that citizens, regardless of race or creed
or colour, be placed on the same footing in this country. After reading a press statement, he went on to say:
What do we find upon examination of this measure? That discrimination is to remain unless, as the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) suggested this afternoon, we bring all our immigration under order in council P.C. 2115 instead of order in council P.C. 695. Because if we fail to remove this limited Chinese immigration from P.C. 2115 and bring it under P.C. 695, what have we? We have renewed discrimination:	That a resident in Canada of
Chinese origin must be a Canadian citizen before he can bring his wife and family into this country, whereas a Canadian resident of European origin can bring his wife and his children under eighteen years of age into this country, whether he is a citizen or not. To remove discrimination we must make the choice.
Well, now, what does that mean? P.C. 2115 was passed on September 16, 1930, by the Bennett government for the purpose of dealing with the entry of Asiatics into this country. That order, which I have already read, provided that the regulations should not apply to the nationals of any country in regard to which there was in operation a law or special treaty or agreement or convention regarding immigration. Such a law now exists with regard to the Chinese and will continue to exist until the house repeals the Chinese Immigration Act by Bill No. 10, which we are now discussing.
By repealing P.C. 2115 the hon. member has proposed to remove discrimination between Europeans and Asiatics and to place that Asiatic immigration under the provisions contained in P.C. 695. That has been emphasized this afternoon by both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Mackenzie. His last sentence in the paragraph I have read, reads, "To remove discrimination we must make the choice." Supposing we made that choice and removed the discrimination to which the hon. member refers. All Asiatics would1 then be entitled to apply to be admitted as immigrants who could comply with the provisions of P.C. 695. Take one category only-and others are equally applicable to Asiatics-that of a farm labourer entering Canada to engage in assured farm employment, as an example. Would any one doubt that many thousands of Chinese could qualify as such?
The house will recall that I asked both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Mackenzie if their argument was to repeal P.C. 2115, leave all immigration under P.C. 695 and delete from P.C. 695 the clause which provides that the provisions of the order in council shall not apply to immigrants of any Asiatic race. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not
Immigration Act

understand my question, so I stated it again to him and I think he understood it.


Mr. FULTON:: What was his answer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The answer was, yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In both cases.


James Allison Glen: I wonder if the hon. gentleman realizes what his words meant? I am speaking now of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. If what he meant in his argument to remove discrimination was as I have already stated, then certainly the only method which he must propose to remove that discrimination of which he spoke as between Europeans and Chinese is that the law should state that no Canadian resident of European origin may bring his wife and minor children into this country unless he is a citizen. He said, to remove discrimination we must make the choice; that is, the government must make the choice. I suggest to these hon. gentlemen that to remove discrimination they must make the choice as to whether they will include Asiatics in P.C. 695 and grant them all the privileges now enjoyed by European immigrants or, conversely, to remove that discrimination between these people and take from the Europeans, the Ukrainians, the Poles and all those from continental Europe the privileges which they have enjoyed for so many years under the law. The government would have to repeal the provisions concerning Asiatics as contained in P.C. 695.
These extensions, or widening of the doors as some call it, were made because of widespread opinion throughout the country that we should take some steps to assist people in Europe who were relatives of residents and citizens of Canada. The repeal of that order would not, I think, meet with very much approval. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar gave as his opinion on February 11 what I have quoted, but shortly thereafter he had somewhat of a change of mind. His oratorical outburst brought doubts and the apostolic certainty with which he then spoke required modification. In any event, the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday evening, February lo, reported an interview which he had given md in which he is reported to have said:
In conformity with the united nations charter .here should be equality of treatment for all foreigners under Canadian immigration law.
Further on, he is reported to have said: However, equality of treatment as to admission to Canada having been established by law, he favoured "gentlemen's agreements" being made with India and China on a reciprocal basis to govern the numbers of East Indians and Chinese to be admitted to the dominion. 
In a further paragraph it is stated:
Mr. Coldwell agreed that the acid test of assimilability is intermarriage but, he added, neither the Chinese nor the Indian governments favour intermarriage of their nationals coming to Canada.


Mr. COLDWELL:: What is wrong with that? There is no conflict there between what I said in the house and what is reported in the newspaper. You are trying to make something appear which does not appear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So did you.


Major James William Coldwell: There is no conflict there. A gentleman's agreement is not discrimination.


James Allison Glen: I was dealing with the hon. gentleman's speech on February 11 when he was referring to "hoax" and "hypocrisy" with regard to the use of discrimination. I asked a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Mackenzie today, if their argument was to repeal P.C. 2115 and to have immigration brought under P.C. 695, which was, I take it, the argument which the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) bad made on February 11, deleting the sentence at the end referring to Asiatics-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And they both said, yes.


James Allison Glen: Yes, they were in agreement with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. I was pointing out that the repeal of P.C. 2115 meant that all the regulations with regard to immigration would come under P.C. 695, and that the deletion of the sentence at the end referring to Asiatics would give Asiatics the same right of entry into our country as Europeans obtained under the law. I pointed out that that would be the effect of the policy advocated by the hon. gentleman, and that, conversely, if he did not want that, he would have to remove the discrimination between Asiatics and Europeans by denying to Europeans the rights they have hitherto had under the law to obtain entry into Canada and bring in their wives and children.
The hon. gentleman asked the government to take its choice. The government is taking its choice. The choice is being taken by asking the house to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act, and the control will then be placed under P.C. 2115.
As to the admittance of Chinese residents in Canada to the privileges of citizenship, the impediment, which was almost insuperable, has been removed by rescinding the order in council requiring them to have the consent of the minister of the interior. The government

Immigration Act
has made its choice and it is in conformity with the policy stated by' the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the house on May 1, at page 2646 of Hansard, where he said:
I wish to state quite definitely that, apart from the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act and the revocation of order in council P.C. 1378 of June 17, 1931, regarding naturalization, the government has no intention of removing the existing regulations respecting Asiatic immigration unless and until alternative measures of effective control have been worked out. Canada recognizes the right of all other countries to control the entry or non-entry of persons seeking to become permanent residents. We claim precisely the same right for our country.
I wish to make it equally clear that the Canadian government is prepared, at any time, to enter into negotiations with other countries for special agreements for the control of admission of immigrants on a basis of complete equality and reciprocity.
The government has made its position clear.
The hon. gentleman also expressed grave anxiety and concern about Canada's position in the united nations if we did not accede to his wishes. I would be much more concerned and feel much more anxiety if this bill did not pass, because then it could be said with justice -and in my judgment the accusation would be unanswerable-that by refusing to give Canadian citizens of Chinese origin the right to have their wives and children live with them in Canada we had violated the charter and denied those citizens what has been and should be considered as an inalienable right to live in family. We say, further, that legal residents in Canada of Chinese origin may become citizens and have the right to bring their wives and children under eighteen years of age, and in order that no obstacle shall be placed in the way of doing that, P.C. 1378 has been repealed. This government has gone much farther than any preceding government. By the bill before us we are removing any hindrance to Chinese residents in Canada from becoming naturalized citizens. That is the policy which the Prime Minister enunciated in his statement of May 1, and that is what, I repeat, is being carried out.
The question was raised, and an endeavour made to make it a debating point, that Australia had made arrangements with the British government by which Australia was able to secure immigrants in much larger numbers than Canada was ever able to do. I would refer hon. members to the statement made in the House of Lords at Westminster by Lord* Addison in column 1064 of the British Hansard. He was dealing with the question of how many emigrants the British government could deal with and said the 'numbers would be very much fewer than the number of applicants. He went on to say that the number moved in the first year would probably be
6,000	to 6,900, or something like that, and that the numbers would be more than doubled the next year. I mention that to show the house that the difficulty in obtaining transportation is very great. We are continually in communication with the high commissioner in London. WTe have explored and shall continue to explore and exhaust every avenue by which we may get ships to bring in the immigrants who are ready to come to our country in larger numbers.
In closing, let me say, so far as the anxiety of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is concerned about our position before the united nations, I am quite sure that the representatives of this government in the person of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) will so conduct themselves that the interests of Canada will not be prejudiced.
Motion (Mr. Glen) agreed to, on division, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon. Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Company may be required to deposit bond.


James Allison Glen: The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 33 of the Immigration Act is to give authority to the immigration inspector in charge at a port of entry to safeguard the passing in direct transit through Canada from one port to another of groups of persons who, not being admissible as immigrants, might remain in Canada if not so controlled. The proposed amendment will enable the inspector in charge at the port of entry to ensure the departure of such parties by requiring the transportation company carrying them across Canada to place a bond as a guarantee of departure. Paragraph 16 will authorize the governor general in council to prescribe the amount and form of the bonds and make regulations for the guarding of such persons while in transit and for their detention at the port of exit while waiting embarkation or completion of arrangements for their departure.
It often happens that bodies of men come from one port and go across Canada to the south. In order that we might have some control of these men, it is thought necessary to have this provision so that we shall know who the parties are that are going across the country.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to correct a misunderstanding that has arisen with regard to my
Immigration Act

speech on the matter of immigration. I spoke on the second reading of the bill on February 11. Outside of about five minutes that I took on Monday, April 28, to speak on the motion to go into supply, I have not had anything to say regarding the merits of the bill. For many years past I have been a consistent supporter of the Polish people. Today the Minister of Labour complained about misleading headlines in the Montreal Standard of Sunday last with regard to Polish soldiers. I wish to complain about the same thing. With regard to the Toronto newspaper I have in mind, especially the heading of April 29 last, I have not a complaint; it is just a difference of opinion.
In the return which the Minister of Labour gave to me he distinctly said that some of the Poles were conscripted into the German army, but that they fought on the Italian front and in northwest Europe. In addition to that, the minister of labour in the old1 country, Mr. Isaacs, reported to the British house that
58,000	of these men were in uniform in the military camps in Britain since the German war closed. They are not doing anything at all with the exception of 400 who are working on the farms and some in the woods. If we wish to bring them here, let us have some of these men, instead of those from Italy, because there were 1,902 Polish airmen killed in the battle of Britain. If there are to be priorities these are the Polish men who should be brought here instead of some of the others. There is a difference of opinion as to whether some of them or all enlisted voluntarily or were conscripted. There is a big difference of opinion on that; a difference in England, Italy, Canada, and a difference in the United States; so much so that Mr. Byrnes, who was secretary of state in the United States, refused to permit them to come to the United States.
I have always been, between the two wars and in them, a supporter of the Polish people. Before the second war I urged that we should lend them money, after Munich, to secure an airport. In conclusion, I wish to say that there should1 be a further check-up or report so that the Canadian people will know how many were volunteers and how many are not. The matter should be cleared up, because there are five or six different opinions on it. Looking through, the British, Canadian and United States press, the British Hansard, the library, and reading Mr. Byrnes' statement and the statement of the minister of labour of Great Britain, Mr. Isaacs, and the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Immigration here who made a clear statement-he generally does 
make a clear statement on any matter that he discusses-I find that there is a difference of opinion on this matter.
I have no objection to the bill. As I said at the beginning, I made a statement when the bill came up on February 11. Between the two wars a million men went away to the United States by emigration. With regard to priorities, it should be given to the British people.
My third reference is to shipping. There is not a ship today for British people to come to this country. On February 11, I urged that they should have priority; that we should utilize the merchant marine and all kinds of vessels to bring them here. During the war we borrowed many ships from the French, the United States and the British. If there is to be any priority at all, I have always contended that it should be shown to our own kith and kin in the old country before we open the doors wide to European-wide immigration, and provide emergency ships for them.


Howard Charles Green: During his speech the minister gave some figures with regard to the possible number of Chinese who would be bringing in their wives and children. May I ask-


James Allison Glen: Would the hon. member ask that question on section 4?


Howard Charles Green: I do not care which section I ask it under so long as I am not ruled out of order. I warn the minister I want to ask also about the policy on the Japanese. That was included in the Prime Minister's statement the other day. I do not wish to let this section pass if I am to have the objection raised on section 4 of the bill that it is too late.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It will not be any later then than now. There has been a broad debate on the second reading, and the bill is now in committee on four sections. The rule is that in committee the debate should be confined strictly to the section under consideration. There is in this bill no section which deals with Japanese immigration. After the time that has been spent in debating this bill, I do not think it would be conducive to the dispatching of the business of the house to reopen it.


Howard Charles Green: But the practice has been that fairly wide discussion is permitted on the first section of the bill. Where the Japanese come into the question is that P.C. 2115 is directly in issue in this bill because it is to become the policy covering Chinese immigration. I want to find out whether or

Immigration Act
not P.C. 2115 is also to apply to Japanese in the future. Therefore there can be no question about my being in order in raising that subject. I have no objection to waiting until the fourth section is called if that is what the minister wishes.


James Allison Glen: I was not expecting that the hon. gentleman would raise again the question of the Japanese because, after all, there is nothing more I can say with regard to the Japanese that has not already been said by the Prime Minister in the statement he made, as reported at page 2646 of Hansard. He said:
With regard to the Japanese, I stated on August 4, 1944, at which time we were at war with Japan, that the government felt that in the years after the war the immigration of Japanese should not be permitted. This is the present view and policy of the government. It will be for future parliaments to consider what change, if any,-should be made in this policy.
I submit that we are again out of order if we discuss the Japanese at this time. When the bill was before the house in the first instance I took exception to the general discussion. Twice I protested that the matter should not be discussed on the bill, but I was not successful in having my protest acceded to, and we have had a discussion for three days on the general policy of immigration, which is not referred to in the bill-


John Horne Blackmore: Will the minister
speak a little louder, please? It is impossible to hear him down here.


James Allison Glen: What I am saying is that
I was endeavouring when the bill was first introduced-


John Horne Blackmore: Louder. You are
discriminating against us down here.


James Allison Glen: I do not want to do that.


Howard Charles Green: You will have the united
nations after you.


James Allison Glen: When the bill was first introduced in the house, I was taking exception to a general discussion of immigration on this bill. I thought the time for a general discussion on immigration should have come on my estimates. However I was not successful in having that practice lived up to, because for three days we have had a general discussion on immigration which has, in a way, something to do with this bill. If it is now proposed that we should also deal with the Japanese on this bill, which refers only to the Chinese, I submit that it is not in order. That general discussion is allowed on
the first clause of a bill has been, I know, sometimes the practice, but it is not the law and is not according to the rules of procedure of this house. The law of the house is that the discussion shall take place on the sections of the bill. What may have been the practice before might have some merit if no lengthy discussion had been had with regard to the principle of the bill; but in this case an extremely lengthy discussion took place, and I submit that we are confined to the clauses of the bill and that from them we should not depart.


Howard Charles Green: As the minister knows very well, having presided over this house for five years, it is impossible to ask questions on the second reading of a bill. When he now says that, because there was a long discussion on the second reading, there should therefore be no questions asked when the house is in committee, he is neatly evading or edging around the problem.


James Allison Glen: No. The hon. member is
proposing the introduction of the Japanese into a bill which has to do with the Chinese.


Howard Charles Green: The policy on the Chinese
in Canada has been covered in the debate, but the Prime Minister's statement has been the main topic of discussion and one paragraph of that statement is the paragraph just read by the minister, which deals with the future, and with this government's present policy on Japanese immigration. I want to ask the minister the method by which it is proposed to carry out that policy. I realize that there is another order in council which provides that there shall be no immigration from an enemy country. I presume that, for the time being, that order in council would prevent immigration from Japan. But how does the government propose to implement the policy announced by the Prime Minister concerning the prevention of Japanese immigration? That is the only question I wished to ask. That is the information I should like to get, and I think the committee is entitled to it.


James Allison Glen: The hon. gentleman is asking me to explain what may be the policy of the government with regard to the administration of the law so far as the Japanese are concerned.


Howard Charles Green: The Prime Minister gave
the policy. What I want to know is, how it is to be implemented?


James Allison Glen: I wish to point out to the
hon. member that the Prime Minister gave the policy not on the bill but as a statement
Immigration Act

on motions before the house, with no intention that the contents of it would be brought into the discussion on this immigration bill. I cannot, and I do not think the hon. gentleman would ask me to go any farther in a statement on government policy than the Prime Minister has already gone in the statement which I have just read, and especially in that last sentence.
It will be for future parliaments to consider what change, if any, should be made in this policy.
As the hon. gentleman himself says, at the moment Japan is an enemy country and therefore we can have no dealing with her.


Howard Charles Green: I am not talking about a future change in policy. I am asking the method by which the government proposes to implement the policy announced by the Prime Minister. I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister, when he made his statement on immigration on May 1, in the very first paragraph said that he was making the statement because there was to be a discussion on immigration; obviously he made that statement for the purpose that the whole statement would be available for discussion on this bill. It may be that the minister does not know how the Prime Minister's policy with regard to Japanese immigration is to be carried out. If he does not yet know how it is to be carried out, I would ask him to say so; we are entitled to know. On the other hand, if the government has some way of implementing that policy, we are also entitled to know what it is.


James Allison Glen: I am sure that the hon. gentleman would not wish me to state a policy applicable to circumstances which have not yet arisen. When the time comes when we are dealing with the Japanese not as enemy aliens, that will be the time for the policy to be stated.


Howard Charles Green: You have not a policy or plan?


James Allison Glen: There is no plan that I know of.


Thomas Reid: I wish to ask the minister a question which has to do with transportation. We have been informed that transportation from Great- Britain to Canada is limited. Has the minister any information as to the proportion of Canadians obtaining transportation on ships arriving at New York from Great Britain? The statement has been made that the United States have a greater proportion of passengers on those ships coming from Great Britain and arriving at New York. Has
[Mr. Glen.l
he any information regarding that? If that is so, I think a request should be made that this should be rectified.


James Allison Glen: We have no information.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Repeal.


John Horne Blackmore: Just before the section passes, I wish to say a few words. I have no particular objection to the section passing, but I believe it is fitting that the members of the committee should realize what we are doing in passing this bill. The figures which the minister gave, if I remember correctly, indicate that there are just about as many Chinese in British Columbia as there are in all the rest of Canada put together. In passing this law we are simply saying to British Columbia, "We are going to dump an impossible problem on your doorstep; you must take it and like it". We in the other parts of Canada, many of the provinces of which have an almost negligible number of Chinese living in them, are telling British Columbia what she must take. I hope that, in the working out of the policy, the government and the minister will take some sort of measure to see that some sort of justice is given to British Columbia. If that is not done I believe the members of this house will live to rue the day. You cannot expect a province of British people to take a monstrous injustice, such as is being forced upon them in this bill, and tamely submit to it. I think we must face that fact.
All the time while the Japanese were going into British Columbia, the men in charge at Ottawa callously and short-sightedly disregarded- the interests of British Columbia. What was the result? Something we are all sorry about today. We disregarded British Columbia, because all she could send here was about seventeen or eighteen members. Such a few members can talk themselves black in the face and the members from other parts of Canada can shrug indifferent shoulders and disregard their pleadings. In my judgment, that is not the kind of attitude upon which to build a strong, united and secure Canada.
There is another matter that comes to my mind. I do not wish to say anything to occasion undue alarm, but a good many members of the house would appear to be taking the point of view that we are never going to face any further difficulty with people from the orient, and that the last war has been fought with people from the orient. I do not think people in our generation have a right to take that supine attitude. We have in our keeping the welfare of generations yet unborn.

Immigration Act
Once more I urge that, in working out this bill and in the administration of the policy, the minister and the government take pains to see that there is not an impossible accumulation of people of the oriental races in the province of British Columbia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to say at once that I deeply appreciate the solicitude of the hon. member for Lethbridge for British Columbia; but I want to tell him that as long as that province continues to send to this house such alert and vigilant representatives, in every party, as have been sent to this parliament, British Columbia has nothing to fear for the future.


Howard Charles Green: This section has to do with the Chinese, and I, too, should like to express to the hon. member for Lethbridge my appreciation, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, for his remarks this evening. We are always grateful for help of this type, and we have had it all too seldom here in years gone by. I should like to check with the minister the figures he gave a few minutes ago in the course of his speech, concerning the number of Chinese who might be able to bring in their wives and children under the new government policy. In the first place, I would ask whether those figures are of the present wives of Chinese, or whether they take into account future marriages.


James Allison Glen: They are the present wives.


Howard Charles Green: I understand, then, that the figures the minister gave deal only with Chinese already married?


James Allison Glen: The figures are from the census of 1941, giving the total population.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the minister to say there were 8,749 Chinese born in Canada or naturalized here. Was that figure correct? That was the figure the minister gave on February 11.


James Allison Glen: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: And of that number, the minister said it was estimated there were 6,547 married Chinese who could take advantage of this change in the law.


James Allison Glen: There were 6,694 persons of
the Chinese race born in Canada.


Howard Charles Green: I am getting at the minister's estimate of the number in that group of 8,749 who could take advantage of the change in the law and bring their wives from China. The figure I have is 6,547.


James Allison Glen: The number of persons of the Chinese race eligible to bring wives and children to Canada would be approximately
6.547.


Howard Charles Green: Then the minister said there were approximately 26,000 Chinese who are not Canadian citizens?


James Allison Glen: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Then the minister estimated that about one-third of those might take advantage of the new provision?


James Allison Glen: That was a guess, an approximation.


Howard Charles Green: That would be about 8,666. As I understand it, from the figure of 6,547 the minister deducted 3,000 who, he said, probably would not take advantage of the provision. For example, he said about 2,000 young Chinese males in Canada would probably marry young Chinese females in Canada, and there were certain other exceptions, making a total of 3,000 which he deducted from the
6.547,	leaving 3,547 who might take advantage of the provision.


James Allison Glen: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: Add to that figure the 8,666 and we get a total of 12,213. So the estimate of the government is that 12,213 Chinese males, married at this time, may well take advantage of this provision and bring in their wives and children under eighteen years of age. Is that correct?


James Allison Glen: Yes, that is substantially correct. Of course the assumption would be that they would become naturalized.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, the 8,666 would first have to become naturalized. In addition to that, as I understood it, any Chinese who is a Canadian citizen can go to China, get married and bring back his wife, though under our new citizenship law she is not a Canadian citizen. Is that correct?


James Allison Glen: That is correct.


Howard Charles Green: There is no doubt about it; they can go to China, get married and bring their wives back to Canada?


James Allison Glen: Yes. I would not want to limit the boundaries of love for a Chinese citizen of this country who wished to go abroad and marry someone in another country. I do not think I would care to be one of those to object.


Howard Charles Green: I am very glad the minister is such an ally- and supporter of Cupid. I just want to get the figures. The position
Immigration Act

then, is that, according to the government's own estimate, we face a possible influx of 12,213 Chinese wives, and, in addition, whatever children are under eighteen years of age. In addition, from now on we can have Chinese go to the orient, marry and bring back their wives?


James Allison Glen: That will be the situation when the act is repealed.	[DOT]


Howard Charles Green: That is the position we face at the present time?


James Allison Glen: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Today about fifty-three per cent of all the Chinese in Canada are in British Columbia, so that British Columbia would have to face the prospect of having well over half those wives and children settling in that province. The minister will admit that is a reasonable estimate ?


James Allison Glen: It is purely an estimate.


Howard Charles Green: Well, may I suggest to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and other members from British Columbia, apart from the C.C.F. members who in the last few days in this house have spared no effort to get orientals for British Columbia, that this may very well be a serious situation, and that it may call for some change in government policy or for some amendment to P.C. 2115 when we can see just how the order in council works out. On the basis of the very estimate given by the Minister of Mines and Resources, there is the possibility of an influx into Canada of Chinese wives and children which may be as great as the total Chinese population in Canada at the present time, which is 34,627.


Humphrey Mitchell: Would the hon. member deny a husband, by law, the right to live with his wife?


Howard Charles Green: Then, can the minister tell us the present law in the United States? As I understand it, when they repealed their Chinese Exclusion Act they put the Chinese on a quota.


James Allison Glen: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: I have here the reports from the United States congress, showing that the quota is 105 a year, allowed to come into the United States. There is some provision made in addition to that for the Chinese wives of United States citizens. That was passed in August, 1946.
I have been unable to get complete information with regard to the provision respecting the entry of wives. But, through the parlia-
'Mr. Gresn.]	'
mentary library, did get a report from the Chinese embassy to the effedt that the quota allowed is twenty-five Chinese wives who may be allowed to enter the United States; but, that in fact, since the change in the law only about ten had come into that country.


Mr. BENIDICKSON:: That twenty-five is allowed how frequently?


Howard Charles Green: The answer from the librarian stated that the quota allowed twenty-five Chinese wives to enter the United States-and I presume that is each year-but that, in fact, only about ten had come into the country since then. I am not sure that these figures are accurate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do no't think they are.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister give us a full statement of the present United States law?


James Allison Glen: I have not that.


Howard Charles Green: I would suggest that he get those figures, because it would seem there is quite a big difference between the United States law and the proposed Canadian law. That should be checked by the minister's department. I understand that at the present time he has no figures under the United States law.


James Allison Glen: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information-and probably it was entirely incorrect-was that the United States law was much more generous than we are trying to be in this instance.


Howard Charles Green: No; I think the minister will find that that is not so. Certainly the quota now for Chinese into the United States is 105 a year. There may be wives of United States citizens allowed over and above that. I would ask the minister to get those figures.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member for
Vancouver South said a few minutes ago that members of the C.C.F. group in the house- and I use the words he used-had spared no effort to get orientals for British Columbia in the last few days. That statement is so obviously inaccurate that I cannot but rise to comment upon it. We are not anxious to secure orientals for British Columbia.


Howard Charles Green: You certainly do not talk that way.


Major James William Coldwell: Nor are we anxious in that respect for any part of Canada. But we are anxious to see to it that a country which calls itself democratic shall remove the last

Immigration Act
vestiges of racial discrimination. That is the point. And so far as immigration of orientals into this country goes, there are few orientals who want to come to this country, a country in which they have never been particularly welcome. I say again to the minister, as I said on February 11, I think it was, that if this country were prepared to enter into a gentlemen's agreement with the Chinese government, the flow of Chinese immigrants into this country could be controlled.
But we are not discussing Chinese immigration in this bill. What we are discussing, actually, is the right of a Chinese to bring into this country his wife and his children under eighteen years of age. That is what we are discussing.


James Allison Glen: Correct.


Major James William Coldwell: And I say to the minister that the discrimination which has been kept on our statute books still remains, when the Chinese resident of Canada is put on a different basis from the resident of any other alien nationality in this country. There is a discrimination.
The minister says to me that I would do this, that and the other thing. I put it squarely up to the minister: How does he propose to remove this discrimination? It is all very well for us to talk in the house about oriental immigration, or all the rest of it, which does not come under this bill. But let me remind hon. gentlemen that the day is past when any nation, whatever its colour, can look down upon any other nation, and treat the nationals of that country as an inferior people.


Norman Jaques: Does that apply to Spain?


Major James William Coldwell: It applies to every
country of the world.


Norman Jaques: Then why did you want to keep them out of UNO?


Major James William Coldwell: Why did we want to keep Spain out of UNO?


Norman Jaques: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Because UNO is an organization of democratic peace-loving [DOT]countries. And so long as Francisco Franco remains dictator of Spain, is it right to call Spain a democratic country or a peace-loving country?


Norman Jaques: It is racial and religious discrimination.


Major James William Coldwell: I will not enter into a controversy with the hon. member regarding Spain, because Spain does not come under this bill.


Norman Jaques: According to you.


Major James William Coldwell: But I am quite willing to enter into a discussion with my hon. friend as to what constitutes democracy.


Norman Jaques: That is what you say.


Major James William Coldwell: And as to what constitutes justice among the people of a nation.


Norman Jaques: Are you the supreme judge?


Major James William Coldwell: I do not accept race hatred, as it is preached by some people in the United States, and their fellow travellers in the Dominion of Canada.
But what I was saying was this, that my objection to this particular measure-and I am going to support it, because it does go a considerable way toward removing discrimination-my objection to an aspect of this measure is that it does not remove discrimination that should be removed at this time.
We are members of the united nations organization. We have removed several skeletons from the Canadian cupboard lately, when the province of British Columbia removed disabilities against East Indians and Chinese, in the matter of the franchise. Those skeletons have been removed from our cupboard, I am thankful to say. But so long as any vestige of racial discrimination remains, we are open to attack in the united nations organization, because we are not carrying out the principles upon which that organization was founded.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does he believe that the control of immigration is a matter for a country itself-and in our instance, Canada -or does he think the united nations organization has authority over immigration into Canada?


Major James William Coldwell: I shall answer that clearly and concisely. The united nations organization has no authority to decide anything that we shall do within the sphere of our domestic jurisdiction. But we have a moral obligation when we sign a charter guaranteeing human rights and fundamental freedoms, when we pledge our word to remove discrimination on account of race, creed or colour.
I say to my hon. friend the member for Vancouver South that I agree, immediately, that this country has a right to decide upon its immigration policy. But I say to my hon. friend also that no liberal-and I use the

Immigration Act
term in the proper sense, with a small "1", and not in a political sense-can possibly condone any policy based upon racial discrimination. That is what I say. No liberal, no man who calls himself a liberal, can possibly condone a policy which is founded upon racial discrimination, discrimination on account of race, or creed or of colour.
The bill before us is a very simple bill and, since it removes certain disabilities, we are going to support it. But I say to my hon. friend that, had the government been consistent and followed the policy which we understood the Prime Minister laid down in his statement when he said that all discrimination would be removed, then all residents in Canada-that is all we are talking about- whether they be of Czech origini, or Scandinavian origin or of any other origin, would be at liberty to bring in their wives and children under eighteen years as they may do now and would be in exactly the same position as residents of Chinese origin. In other words, if we allow Czech, the Swede, the Norwegian or any other national resident in this country to bring in his wife and children, then the resident of Chinese origin should be accorded the same privilege if wre are removing all vestiges of discrimination as the Prime Minister indicated. That is the point I am making.
To the minister who turns to me and says, "What would you do?" I say, "What are you going to do to remove this vestige of discrimination?" What is he going to do to remove this blight on the escutcheon of Canada? What is he going to do to justify the calling of that government over there a Liberal government. Liberalism once stood for something very different from that which is included in. this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am greatly thrilled
indeed to have a lecture on Liberalism from an arch socialist in this house. I want to tell him that I was raised in the cradle of Liberalism and I have been a Liberal all my life. He has not met the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South, who referred to the possibility of a great preponderance of population of another race coming into our province of British Columbia with only a million people. We have to face this question not only as a nation but as a province which must consider the proper preponderance in order to keep the herd pure, in order to keep the old Anglo-Saxon-French balance and the central European balance proper in this country. When he talks about Liberalism to me, my goodness, it is the biggest insult I ever had in this house.


Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: He
was talking to a member of the herd.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have reason to
believe that my hon. friend was once tinged with Toryism, that he was possibly a Tory, but now he is a red-hot, fire-brand socialist. We over here are Liberal reformers; we believe in the essential idealism of Liberalism; we believe in the essential principles of liberty and freedom; we believe in the dominance of the white race in the Dominion of Canada, and for that we stand.


James Allison Glen: I was objecting at the beginning to the introduction of something other than the clauses of this bill tonight. The hon. gentleman has astutely taken the opportunity to reply to me, but he forgets the issue. I am putting the question to the hon. member-


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I will speak again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So will I.


James Allison Glen: -as was stated by two of his followers this afternoon, that he believed and that they believed, that their argument was that immigration should be brought under P.C. 695 with the deletion of the clause regarding Asiatics. Is that the position the hon. member is taking?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Yes, but not with your interpretation of that position. Do not try to twist what we are saying. W'e want the removal of racial discrimination in so far as that order in council goes. You know where the discrimination is as well as I do.


James Allison Glen: The question that was asked
of those two hon. members was:	Are you
proposing to repeal order in council 2115, and the answer was, yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They said so.


James Allison Glen: The repeal of order in council 2115 would place immigration under the regulation of order in council 695. I asked them if they proposed to take the clause dealing with Asiatics out of P.C. 695. and the answer was. yes. That means that the law and the regulations governing immigration into this country, if their wishes were acceded to, would be under P.C. 695, and then any person resident in Canada could bring in his father, his mother, his brother and every one of the denominations in the categories that are included in 695. That is where you would be.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why not?


James Allison Glen: 
Major James William Coldwell: Can other races do the same thing?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: All the Chinese who have been legally admitted to Canada would be in the same position as the Swedish or other people.


James Allison Glen: Also agriculturists.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Certainly.


James Allison Glen: I read to the house the statement the hon. member made with regard to the assimilability of these people. He said that the acid test of assimilability is intermarriage, but that neither the Chinese nor the Indian governments favour intermarriage of their nationals coming to Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I said that, yes.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member stated, I think positively, that they will not assimilate with our Canadian people. Therefore he wishes a gentleman's agreement. That is not what was said today.


Major James William Coldwell: It is what I said.


James Allison Glen: Your two followers did not say that.


Major James William Coldwell: Do you agree with everything in every particular that individuals behind you say?


James Allison Glen: Your followers said today
that they wanted immigration under P.C. 695; yet in the interview you gave you said that the acid test of assimilability is intermarriage, but that neither the Chinese nor the Indian governments favour intermarriage of their nationals coming to Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: I say that the acid test of any nation's non-discriminatory policy is equality. You are trying to dodge the question: What will you do?


James Allison Glen: Exactly what this bill is doing.


Major James William Coldwell: Then you do not remove discrimination.


James Allison Glen: We take the position, as was stated by the Prime Minister, that Canada recognizes the right of all other countries to control the entry or non-entry of persons seeking to become permanent residents and that we claim precisely the same right for our country. That is the position I am taking.


Norman Jaques: We have heard a lot about racial discrimination as applied to orientals and the people outside Canada, but I should like to take up the case of racial discrimination against the oldest citizens of Canada. I ask the leader of the C.C.F. to answer this
question: Is it not the fact that Indians in this country are not allowed to consume alcoholic beverages as white men are?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are dealing with section 2, which relates to the ' repeal of section 80 of the Immigration Act. That refers to the Chinese only.


Norman Jaques: I was merely giving an illustration of racial discrimination, and I wanted to hear the answer of the leader of the C.C.F. on this particular aspect of racial discrimination. I state the fact that the Indians as a race, and for no other reason than that they are of the Indian race, are not allowed to take a drink the same as I am allowed to take a drink, or as the leader of the C.C.F. is allowed to take a drink; and I ask the leader of the C.C.F. whether he would advocate that Indians be allowed to drink as freely as he and I are allowed to do, andi if not, why not?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with the matter.


Norman Jaques: It is an example of racial discrimination.


Major James William Coldwell: I will, however, answer the question. The way in which the Indians in this country have been treated has been a blot on Canada's good name.


William Ross Macdonald: I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is correct when he says that the question has nothing to do with the section under consideration.


Angus MacInnis: We have been making a great fuss over who is going to flood the country and who is going to have a dirink and who is not, and I think it is time that we got down to a reasonable understanding of the issues involved. If the Chinese are put on the same basis as other people so far as their right to enter this country is concerned, that does not mean that Canada must allow the entry of every Chinese who comes within the regulations and asks to come here. We do not admit everybody from other countries who comes within the regulations. It is pretty difficult, as a matter of fact, for any person of any race who does come within the regulations to enter Canada now. There is, I suppose, no discrimination against Poles entering this country. As a matter of fact, quite a number of them entered Canada fairly easily not so long ago. Yet I have been making inquiries on behalf of a. Canadian citizen who fought in the last war and whose daughter was in Great Britain during the war and married a Polish soldier. This Canadian citizen wants to
Immigration Act

bring his daughter and son-in-law to Canada but he cannot. If we can apply restrictions of that kind to Poles why cannot we apply them to the Chinese without being charged with discrimination? We certainly can make what laws we like, but these laws should apply equally to peoples of all nations. If the Minister of Mines and Resources says that he does not agree with that, he is repudiating the statement which the Prime Minister made in January, that wTe were removing all discrimination. You cannot remove discrimination and at the same time maintain it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How would you reduce the number of the Chinese who may come in? If you say that any agricultural labourer may come in, how are you going to keep the Chinese out?
Mr. MaeINNIS: I do not think anjr agricultural labourer from any other country ryho wants to come to Canada can come in now. If they can, very few of them are coming in. With the removal of all discrimination there is no reason in the world why conditions cannot be made that will limit the number of Chinese, coming into this country in proportion to the numbers of any other race entering the country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is quite different.
Mr. MaeINNIS: It is not different at all.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member is speaking of a quota system?
Mr. MaeINNIS: I am speaking of a quota system. If the removal of discrimination requires a quota system, then let us have a quota system, but do not let us shout to the world that we are removing discrimination While at the same time we are maintaining it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister made reference to my remarks this afternoon and I feel that he did not draw effective conclusions. I will repeat again what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said. On January 27 the Prime Minister promised this country and the world that, so far as Canada was concerned, the effect of the repeal would be to remove all discrimination against the Chinese on account of race and to bring the Chinese under the general provisions of the Immigration Act and no longer under legislation applying exclusively to people of Chinese origin.
The minister has said that the government is going back on that promise of the Prime Minister, that it is not the intention to remove racial discrimination. I would draw the attention of the committee to the fact that normally quite a number of Canadians go to China as merchants or as missionaries. We would think

it unreasonable of the Chinese government if they insisted that every Canadian who went to China should become a citizen of that country before being permitted to bring in his wife and children, and naturally the people of China consider it unreasonable that we have one law for the Chinese and another for Europeans.
It was mentioned earlier tonight that the United States was still discriminating against the Chinese, but according to my information the United States in 1943 repealed their Chinese exclusion act. The president of the day, the late President Roosevelt, is quoted as saying:
China's resistance does not depend alone on guns and planes and on attacks on land, on the sea and from the air. It is based as much on the spirit of her people and her faith in her allies. We owe it to the Chinese to strengthen that faith. One step in this direction is to wipe from the statute books those anachronisms in our law which forbid the immigration of Chinese people into this country and which bar Chinese residents from American citizenship.
That was in 1943. If P.C. 695 does not meet with the approval of the administration I think it is imperative that an order in council be drafted immediately which will be acceptable to the government and which will remove completely any discrimination on account of race or religion. I make this last plea with the minister to repeal P.C. 2115, and, if he cannot accept P.C. 695 with the last paragraph struck out, that he amend it to place all people in the same position because, as the hon. member for Vancouver East has pointed out, it would not mean that every applicant would be accepted. The administration would still have the authority to decide who should be admitted. But we cannot go to the united nations meeting with this sort of regulation in effect in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to put one more simple question to the minister. Those of us who have been talking about this question in the house and those who have been writing editorials about it have tried to focus attention on what amounts to one pretty small group. I am not going back on any of the general statements I have made, but we are talking now of one small specific group, namely, Chinese persons resident in Canada who are not citizens, and our suggestion is that Chinese persons legally resident in Canada who are not citizens should have the same right as European persons legally resident in Canada. We made our suggestion as to how that right should be extended to them, the right to bring in their wives and children. The minister objected to our way of doing it on the ground that it was opening the doors

Immigration Act
too wide. Other members of this group have made an answer to that and I am not going into it farther.


James Allison Glen: What was the answer? I did not get the answer, if there was one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not going to take up the time to give it again. It is on the record from the leader of this group and from the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am really trying to narrow this down to the specific group which most of us are immediately concerned about. What I am saying is that if the minister does not approve the way that we suggest doing it, on the ground that it opens the doors too far, has he not some suggestion to meet this particular group? Is there not some way in which he can provide for Chinese residents now resident in Canada, whether citizens or not, by permitting them to bring in their wives, just as European persons do who are resident in Canada and who do not happen to be citizens? One answer that he might make is that they can become citizens. That is admitting that he is prepared to have that number come in. Why not remove from the statute books that racial discrimination with respect to these people? Has he any suggestion?


James Allison Glen: As I understand the hon. member's question, he is asking that I should consent to P.C. 695 being applicable to Chinese in the same way as it is applicable to anyone else. Because of the argument that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was adducing in the house when he was speaking and also the hon. member for Mackenzie, I asked the specific question whether that was their argument. That would mean that under P.C. 695 the Chinese would have the same rights as Europeans to come into this country and in a year bring in their wives under certain conditions and all the other categories of relatives. Does the hon. gentleman seriously mean that I should consent to such an amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: We are hot asking that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the minister must have misunderstood the question I was putting to him, for he asked me this question before and I gave him my answer categorically without any hesitation. I have accepted the fact that we cannot agree on that, and I am trying to see now if there is not some point between his position and mine to which the government might move. I am trying to ask him if there is not some way, in an amended form of P.C. 695, if you like, by means of which provision can be made just for Chinese 83166-178
persons resident in Canada, whether citizens or not, to bring in their wives and children.


James Allison Glen: I should not like to say that there was. At the moment I would not care to say that we could meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking the government to give consideration to that point.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to recall to the committee a matter which I brought to the attention of the house some days ago. If we allow a sufficient number of Chinese to come into British Columbia to become the predominating element I should like members of the C.C.F. to tell us how we should be able to prevent discrimination against the white people in British Columbia.


Clarence Gillis: Why pick on British
Columbia?


John Horne Blackmore: Because it is an illustration. Hon. members have simple minds. I am trying to get the matter down so that they can get hold of it. Hon. members of the committee must bear this in mind. We must prevent the white race from being discriminated against, and particularly the Anglo-Saxons. It is a simple matter for us to put so many people into this country who are not of our particular way of life as would make it impossible for us to have a chance to live.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
F rench-Canadians ?


John Horne Blackmore: All right; I shall put them in too. You can get so many Chinese and Japanese into this country that the ordinary Canadian, French or British would not have any chance to live according to the standard of life to which they are accustomed. If anyone pretends that a situation such as that would not be discriminating against our own people I should like to see him rise in his place and give his reasons for his belief. This is a matter which needs to be faced.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I assume that the transportation system on the Pacific is just as bad as it is on the Atlantic.


An hon. MEMBER:: Worse.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Very well. That strengthens the argument I am going to advance. Within a year Chinese residents in Canada can take out citizenship papers. Then they are entitled to bring their wives and children under eighteen years of age to this country. If we grant them that right now as residents, with the situation on the Pacific being as bad as it is on the

Immigration Act

Atlantic, they will not be able to bring these relatives of theirs into this country for more than a year. Therefore, why maintain this discrimination against them? Will the minister please answer?


James Allison Glen: I do not know what the question is, really.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: It is a statement of fact, that if we grant that same equality of right to the Chinese residents in Canada that we do to other residents, because of the nature of things in the shipping world they cannot bring their relatives to Canada within a year or two. If we permit them to take out citizenship, as we shall, I assume, they will do so by the time the year has expired. Then they will have the right to bring their families here. We are making no difference at all so far as immigration into this country within a year is concerned. Why then continue this discrimination?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Dependents permitted to enter Canada.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Since we are now off the Chinese question for the time being, I should like to bring up the matter of the transportation of dependents of ex-service men to the country. Can the minister tell us what arrangements are being made for the transportation of such of these dependents as are still overseas? What space is being secured'? When are these people to be able to get over here?


James Allison Glen: I am informed that they must apply for their own space in order to get here.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Does the Canadian government make no arrangements so far as space for these people is concerned? Does it not aid them in seeming space?


James Allison Glen: Up to the end of last year they did, but not now. There is no provision made for it now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to urge upon the minister that arrangements be made to secure space for these people, and in addition to the particular dependents who are mentioned in this section, that aid be given to secure space for the categories of people I mentioned this afternoon, fiancees of returned men and close relatives, mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, and so forth. I do not think we shall be able to say that we have solved the problem of bringing these dependents of ex-service personnel to this country until these people are over here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say to my hon. friend that a committee is now functioning in England under the chairmanship, I think, of Mr. Norman Robertson, considering all these related questions with reference to transportation of relatives and dependents of ex-service men.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to know how the thing is functioning. Is it actually getting these people over? I mentioned the case of the fiancee of one of these men of ours who has been trying now for well over a year to get the girl over, but she is still in England. What is actually being done?


Mr. CLAXTON:: There never was any provision for fiancees.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am urging that there should be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is one of our
hardships.


Mr. BRACKEN:: It is eleven o'clock.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Call it eleven o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is it not possible to get this bill to the third reading stage for tomorrow in order to get it over to the other house? We have had a very fine discussion on all stages of this bill. If the committee would consent to get it up to the third reading stage tonight they could bring up the other points tomorrow with the consent of the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a question to ask. The minister gave figures of 77,000 tonight. Can he say how many of these include dependents such as are covered in this bill, and fiancees and brides of Canadian soldiers who returned to Canada?


James Allison Glen: Wives, 31,807; children, 14,272; total, 46,079.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Of the 77,000, 46,000 are war brides and families?


James Allison Glen: Yes.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 3 carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman.
There is one other matter I wish to take up in connection with this. It is the case of men who were married before the war started, whose wives were caught over in Europe-in England, or wherever the case may be-and who, because of the particular wording of subsection 4 (b) of this particular act, are not included. I asked this afternoon if the minister, when we came to take up this section, would say whether anything would be done for those people. I instanced particularly the case of a man whose wife was caught in Belgium, who

Immigration Act
had great difficulty in getting her back after the war, and who had to pay for her himself. I expressed my idea that wives and children of men who did serve overseas should have the same privilege as wives who were secure whilst the men were over there. Has the minister anything to say in that connection?


James Allison Glen: I am afraid I am not in a position to help them. There are many in the same category as those the hon. gentleman speaks of where the expense had to be borne by somebody but not by the government. I am afraid I cannot do anything to help in that connection.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the section carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Mr. Chairman. In that event I should like to move a small amendment: in line 29, after the world "while", insert the words "or before". The subsection would then- read:
The wife or widow of a member of the forces who is not resident in Canada and who was married to such member of the forces while or before such member of the forces was serving outside of Canada or the territorial waters thereof . . .
And so on. I offer that amendment in order to protect those people, however many there are-I do not suppose the number is very great, but there is a great hardship on those who are in that situation-and to bring them within the meaning of this act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Allison Glen: No. This would mean an addition to the amounts that might be provided, so far as I can see it just now; and I am afraid that I could not accept that amendment.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister has got the point?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why should a man who got married, who was over in London and who perhaps did not do any fighting but had an office job and picks up a bride over there, be in the position where we bring her back, yet here is a married chap-one who was married in Canada, with a Canadian wife who was caught in Belgium, which was the illustration given today-whose wife is discriminated against in favour of a bride that a soldier picked up?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Why should that 'be? This husband served five years over there and he fought all through northwestern Europe. Apparently I have used a wrong
expression somewhere, Mr. Chairman. That does seem to me to be a reasonable change which is asked for.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would my hon. friend consent to this? The amendment is obviously out of order, as pointed out by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Mines and Resources. Would he leave it to the two departments of immigration and veterans affairs to look into this matter very carefully and sympathetically, and see what they can do to meet the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary East?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Have you ruled my amendment out of order, Mr. Chairman?


William Ross Macdonald: It is obviously out of order if it calls for an additional expenditure. The minister has stated that it would involve additional expenditure, and therefore I rule it out of order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then, if the amendment is ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman, I shall certainly accept the suggestion made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, that the matter be looked into. I trust that it will be looked into and that something will be done about it; because I think it is a disgraceful situation that we should have people in the situation of the man that I described1 this afternoon as compared with other men who went over, merely took part in the occupation force, secured wives and the government brought them back.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 11.08 p.m.
Tuesday, May 6, 1947