1947-02-11

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:
Your committee recommends that the standing committee on agriculture and colonization consist of the following members:
Messrs. Argue, Arsenault, Barrett, Beaudoin, Belzile, Bentley, Bertrand (Prescott), Black (Cumberland), Black (Huntingdon), Bryce, 83166-201
Burton, Cardiff, Charlton, Clark. Cloutier, Cote (Matapedia-Matane), Coyle, Cruickshank, Deehene, Desmond, Diefenbaker, Douglas, Drope, Dubois, Fair, Farquhar, Fontaine, Gagnon, Gardiner, Gibson (Comox-Alberni), Golding, Gour, Hackett, Halle, Harkness, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Hatfield, Jutras, Kirk, Lapalme, Laurendeau, Leger, Lesage, Matthews (Brandon), McCubbin, McGarry, MeLure, Menary, Michaud, Quelch, Ross (Souris), Senn, Sinnott, Townley-Smith, Tucker, Warren, Webb, Whitman, Wright and Wylie.
He said: I understand that the members have been agreed upon by all parties in the house.
Mr. MACKENZIE moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. COLD  WELL@: May I ask when we may expect the list of the other committees? The same situation may arise in regard to them as arose in the house yesterday.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: We are pressing all we can and I hope the list will be ready during the week. We certainly are not losing any time in getting the views of all parties in the house, including our own.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That the standing committee on agriculture and colonization be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copy of P.C. 401, dated February 3, 1947, rescinding the appointment of Mr. F. B. Kilbourn, of Montreal, as controller of the Steel Company of Canada, Limited, Hamilton, the Algoma Steel Corporation, Limited, Sault Ste. Marie, and the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, Limited, Sydney, Nova Scotia. The custody and control of the properties of these companies were revested in the companies as of that date.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to raise a question of privilege concerning the hon. members of this house. It has to do with a matter of the inaccurate reporting of yesterday's proceed-
Inquiries of the Ministry

ings of parliament. The report appears on the front page of the Globe and Mail, under the heading, "Confusion in Commons After Bracken Motion Forces First Division". Then the leader goes on to say:
In the first division of the present session, the government was upheld late today by a vote of 108 to 41, forced by a resolution submitted by Opposition Leader John Bracken.
That is the point, Mr. Speaker. In the first place, the government was not upheld, because the government was not involved. It was really a vote of confidence in the Speaker, following a challenge of his ruling. In the second place, the motion of the leader of the opposition was never voted on at all; therefore the action of the government was not challenged. In the third place, there was no confusion except in the mind of the writer of this report.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the past there have been considerable delays in dealing with redistribution, resulting in quite a scramble at the end of the session. I am sure that hon. members on the other side of the house as well as on this side would like to avoid that. Can the Prime Minister say mow when the government proposes to introduce the redistribution bill?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to my hon. friend that the bill will be introduced this week.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Om the orders of the day:
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMrNG (Eglinton): I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State fior External Affairs. What has been done by the government toward the forming of a national commission in keeping with article VII of the charter of UNESCO?
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): In October of last year a temporary advisory committee consisting of representatives from government departments and various national organizations interested in education, science and culture was established. One of the terms of reference of this committee was to advise the government on the establishment of a national com-

mission or cooperating body on UNESCO questions. Consideration of this question by the temporary advisory committee was deferred until the general conference of UNESCO had clearly determined the programme of that organization.
Mr. GRAYDON:: Has the minister any information to give as to whether the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are to take some part in UNESCO?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The only information I have is that observers on their behalf attended the general conference of UNESCO. I do not know of any indication of an intention to become members of the organization.


Gordon Graydon: They did not attend at the original conference.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.



CADET SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. FULTON (Kamloops):: Is the Minister of National Defence in a position to give the house any information with regard to the limitation of the number of cadets being trained?


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: No; I am sorry I have not that information. I will get it for the hon. member.


Mr. SKEY:: May I ask the minister if when he brings down the information on cadets he will include information on air cadets, with specific reference to whether the air cadet programme in Canada has been curtailed?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to get that information. I think I should explain to hon. members that it would require a pretty lengthy statement to deal with the whole cadet programme, and it seems to me it might be more appropriately dealt with on the estimates. However, I shall be glad to look into it and possibly give the hon. gentleman and the house as full information as possible.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of the answer he gave yesterday as to the power of amendment of orders in council which will be attached to the

Inquiries oj the Ministry
omnibus bill. Will the orders in council covering price control and rent controls be subject to the necessary changes, as they are at the present time, over the period during which the act will be in force?
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of
Justice): As I said yesterday, the orders in council relating to price control and rental control will not be subject to amendment or extension; they will be subject to revocation either in whole or in part. Perhaps my hon. friend has in mind the duties and functions of agencies operating under the orders in council. Those agencies will have the power to perform such duties as are granted to them under and by these orders in council, and in that way they will be able to make the necessary changes in maximum prices, for example, as may be required from time to time.



ORDER IN WHICH MEASURES TO BE CONSIDERED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['May I say to my hon. friend that the house is very fortunate in having a Secretary of State for External Affairs who is in a position to give his whole time to the work of that department. I know my colleague is most anxious that the house shall have as large an opportunity as possible to discuss external affairs, and he will, I believe, bring on the consideration of external affairs at an early day in the session. But that does not necessarily mean that at a particular time in any particular week or month. I doubt whether that would be advisable. However, I am always glad to consider any suggestion my hon. friend makes and will take that one into consideration.']
John Bracken: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 

[Stage Direction]
PROVISION FOR DISCUSSION On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I
should like to direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-I think it affects both. During the last session of parliament the standing committee on external affairs, with the later concurrence of the house, agreed that arrangements should be made for the discussion from time to time of international affairs. Will the government give consideration to meeting the wishes of the committee and of parliament as expressed last session, so that there will be an opportunity to discuss international matters on the floor of the house, not after the event but while the issues are still fresh in the minds of the public, thereby giving the people the opportunity of expressing their views on the various questions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that the house is very fortunate in having a Secretary of State for External Affairs who is in a position to give his whole time to the work of that department. I know my colleague is most anxious that the house shall have as large an opportunity as possible to discuss external affairs, and he will, I believe, bring on the consideration of external affairs at an early day in the session. But that does not necessarily mean that at a particular time in any particular week or month. I doubt whether that would be advisable. However, I am always glad to consider any suggestion my hon. friend makes and will take that one into consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DAVID GOURD (Chapleau) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the following questions of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell):	First, what is the official
date on which the Noranda strike was settled? Second, on what basis was it settled?


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Chapleau gave me notice of this question. Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should tell my hon. friends that my grandfather was French.
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Mr. HOMUTH:: Answer in the same way.


Humphrey Mitchell: If I did that, my hon. friend would not understand me.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: No one in the house can speak as many languages' as the Minister of Labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member for Chapleau was good enough to give me notice of his question. I wish to thank him for his interest and help in- this dispute. As the house no doubt is aware, the strike at Norand-a Mines Limited was settled late on Sunday night, following negotiations conducted by the Hon. Mr. Justice 0. L. Boulanger who was appointed as industrial disputes inquiry commissioner in this case. The negotiations reached a crucial stage on- Sunday. A formula for settlement of the strike was considered by the men's committee and subsequently referred to mass meetings of- the membership held later in the day. The points still in dispute were the amount of the wage increase-an alternative to the demand for a check-off which the union had was dropped

 and the terms under which the men- would be taken- back to work. After clarification of the latter question the proposals put forward were accepted by the members at their meetings and a memorandum of settlement was signed late on Sunday night by the company and the union.
The terms of settlement provide for a wage increase of 13 cents an hour, 10 cents retroactive to May 16, 1946, and the remainder effective November 1, 1946. Provision has been made for the collection of union dues on premises adjacent to the mine two afternoons a month. It was agreed that the men would be returned to work without discrimination in so far as legitimate un-ion activity during the strike was concerned, and that every effort would -be made -by the company to have- all employees back in the mine within fourteen days of the strike settlement.
I should like at this time- to -pay high tribute to the patience, good humour and effectiveness of- the commissioner, Mr. Justice Boulanger. The dispute was a difficult one to conciliate but with perseverance, good sense and a capacity for mediation on the part of the commissioner and a willingness to compromise by the parties to the dispute the strike was resolved.



THE KING'S BIRTHDAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: May I inquire of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether

there has been any announcement as to the date on which His Majesty's birthday is to be celebrated? I -have received a communication and I want to plan something special. Perhaps t-he appropriate minister will reply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the hon. member referring to the celebration in Canada?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The celebration in Canada of His Majesty's birthday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know that the matter ivas up fo-r consideration- bu-t I do not believe a final decision has been reached. I will see that the hon-. gentleman's question is considered.



POSTAL SERVICE


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Yesterday the hon, member for Peace River (Mr. Low) asked- me -a question as to the delivery of gift parcels in- Germany. I may -tell him today that it is possible to send parcels to any zone in Germany. They are accepted, an-d instructions have been given to the post office to advise people who want to send such parcels. The cost runs from 60 cents for one pound to $2.25 for eleven pounds.



AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. A. CRUICKSHANIC (Fraser Valley) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to you, and I hope I am loud enough. Last year the member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) brought up a most interesting subject. Just now I have been listening to the best of my ability to a private discussion between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, and I have not the faintest idea what either of them has said. According to the press you ruled, sir, after a delightful trip to Mexico or somewhere, that microphones were not needed in this house. The most important part of this house in bringing representations to the people of Canada is the press gallery. We cannot hear a word that is being said from the front benches; how then can the press gallery hear? With all deference to your ruling, sir, I would ask that further consideration be given the question of installing microphones or some' other effective device.

Militia Pension Act


Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield):: Unless we have order and decorum in this house, those of us sitting in our seats here-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Where else would you sit
if not in your seats?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -are unable to hear a word that is being said. Without order we shall be unable to hear, no matter what the speaker may say.



RAIL TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of
Reconstruction and Supply whether Canadian Pacific Airlines have received special permission to operate the emergency shuttle service which they have been operating for the last day or two on a western section of the transcontinental line.


Right Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: I shall be glad
to make inquiries of the air transport board and advise my hon. friend.



FERTILIZERS ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the third reading of Bill No. 9, to amend the Fertilizers Act.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: Last night the minister
suggested that he would be willing to fix a certain time limit, and while that is not in the bill I suggest to him that the house could take it for granted, on his word to that effect, that this measure is to extend only to the time of the calling of another session. It is true the bill gives the minister wide enough powers, but could we not have an understanding-we will take his word for it; I would, though thousands would not-that it will extend, let us say, only until next session?


Mr. GARDINER:: I did say in the discussion yesterday that if it were the desire of the committee to have a time limit put in I was satisfied to have that done. The committee passed the bill as it was, but there is nothing to prevent anyone next session from bringing the matter up again and having a discussion on it, and I shall be prepared to consider it then.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKinnon for the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking on the second reading when we adjourned the debate yesterday afternoon. The understanding is that when the second reading carries the minister will move to have the bill referred to the standing committee on agriculture which was constituted today.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I move that Bill No.
4,	to amend the Canada Grain Act, be referred to the committee on agriculture.


John Bracken: I wish to support the motion made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to standing committee on agriculture and colonization.



MILITIA PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 10, consideration in committee of Bill No.
5,	to amend the Militia Pension Act-Mr. Claxton-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 2.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Has any further consideration been given to making service in any one of these branches of the non-permanent force count towards pension?


Brooke Claxton: When this matter was before the house last night the hon. member for Vancouver North and other members had suggested that in considering the time of service in the non-permanent active militia and the other reserve forces as counting for service for pension purposes in the permanent forces, it should be possible to count service in one of the arms on account of service for pension in any of the other arms. In this connection I should point out that when the provision was drawn as it was in 1910 and left as it was last year when this part of the act was adopted, it was considered that non-
Militia Pension Act

permanent time, to be considered for pension purposes, should be time spent in experience in a branch of the forces which would be useful in the soldier's permanent career. Consequently when part V was drafted last year, and when it was enacted by the house, this provision took its present form, and in order to count for pension purposes non-permanent service had to be in the arm in which the soldier made his permanent career.
I should also point out that up to the amendment enacted last year this provision enabling a permanent force soldier to count non-permanent service on account of pension was available only to officers, and one of the amendments introduced last year was to make it available to other ranks. That was part of a carefully worked out plan for pensions for officers, warrant officers and other ranks of all three services. It was introduced in the house last year and enacted as part V of the Militia Pension Act. I must say frankly, as I said last night, that we should like to keep this provision as it is and see it in practice for a time before making changes. There are reasons for that. One is that this part applies not only to soldiers who entered t'he permanent force after April 1, 1046, but also to members of the permanent force at April 1, 1046, who may elect to come into this part and become subject to its provisions provided they make that election up to March 31, 1948. As yet we do not know how many members of the permanent force on April 1, 1946, if any, will take advantage of the election.	.
It does seem, however, on consideration and after discussing it with the officers of the three services, as if the number who will make that election will not be very great; so that if the proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver North is carried out, it would not have any very substantial retroactive effect. It would benefit, of course, those it covers among the men Who have entered the force since April 1, 1946; but even there the number having nonpermanent service in another arm would probably not be very great. In consequence, while we should have preferred to keep the act as it is, I am prepared to accept this suggestion on behalf of the government and will ask my colleague, the Secretary of State, to move the amendment.


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: I move:
That section 2 of Bill No. 5 be amended by deleting subparagraph (iv) as therein set out and substituting the following therefor:
(iv) One-fourth of the period of service counted as service in the non-permanent active militia, the reserve force, the auxiliary active air force, the Royal Canadian Air Force (auxiliary), the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve or the Royal Canadian Navy (Reserve);

li such service is not service that may be counted under subparagraph (v) of this paragraph; and . . .


Mr. KIDD:: I should like to say a few words on the amendment. The mover and the seconder have not included the service of students and gentleman cadets at the Royal Military College or the students attending Royal Roads. The discussion yesterday was helpful and constructive, but I am a little bit surprised at the Secretary of State. If he reads Hansard of yesterday he will find that he has not gone far enough. It is not for me to press this point home; it is for him. In as kindly way as I can I want to say to the Secretary of State that this bill to amend the Militia Pension Act does not go far enough. If this amendment goes through in its present form I believe the minister will be discriminating against the cadets of the Royal Military College and Royal Roads. The minister has made one concession; I think he should go just a little further.
To explain my point let me say this. Royal Roads was not in existence prior to 1939, of course, but when a cadet of the Royal Military College joined the permanent forces, his services were accepted at once and without question. Take the case of a young man who served in the non-permanent forces, or in a C.O.T.C. He gave four yeans of service, which he would be allowed to count towards pension on the basis of one year for every two years he served. I believe any person who has been associated with the militia, anyone who has been a commanding officer, would prefer to have that cadet from the Royal Military College join his unit, after four years of training at that college, than any young man who had spent the same length of time in the non-permanent militia; and in saying that I do not wish to offend anyone who served in the militia.
I do not want to enlarge upon what has been said already, but as strongly as possible I am going to urge the government to go one step further. I believe they should let this matter stand in abeyance and bring in a further amendment inserting the words "Royal Military College and Royal Roads."


Mr. GILLIS:: Many of us do not have copies of the amendment, and I should like the minister who moved it to explain exactly what it means. How does it affect the present section?


Colin William George Gibson: It means that a man may count service in any branch of the reserve forces toward his pension in the permanent force. A man who had served in the reserve of the air force, for example, and

Militia Pension Act
who later joined the permanent army, up to the present time would not be permitted to count his service in the air force reserve toward his pension in the army. This amendment makes it possible for service in any of the reserve forces to be counted toward pension when a man joins any of the permanent forces.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Why does the minister wish to exclude R.M.C. and Royal Roads? Young men attending these institutions are cadets; the midshipmen go to sea.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: A midshipman is an officer, not a cadet.


Brooke Claxton: I might answer, the two hon. gentlemen who have just spoken by saying this matter was discussed very thoroughly yesterday, when what I thought were cogent reasons were given as to why attendance at R.M.C. and Royal Roads should be considered as different from service in the non-permanent active militia. Briefly, the reason was that on entry into the Royal Military College and the Royal Roads Naval College a cadet does not take an oath of attestation; he does not form part of a corps as it is defined in the Militia Act; he is not liable to service; he is not in fact a soldier or a sailor. As I pointed out, this matter is not new; it has been like this since there has been a military pension act. The question has been considered and discussed frequently, and the position I have just stated has been taken consistently.
I would point out another position which is not at all dissimilar. Take the case of a civil servant who, after a period of service, becomes entitled to a pension because of his service. There never has been any suggestion that such civil servant should count for pension purposes the time he spent at the university or at a law school or a school of mines qualifying himself to become a civil servant.


James Sinclair: And for which he himself paid.


Brooke Claxton: Yes, which he himself paid for. I do not think it has ever been suggested that the civil servant should count, as time for pension purposes in the civil service, the time he spent preparing himself to qualify for the position. I submit the positions are substantially analogous. The whole Militia Pension Act is based upon the notion of service in one or other branch of the armed forces of Canada; and the active force and reserve force are two of those branches.


Mr. CHURCH:: There is considerable criticism of this economy measure, as the public and those in the reserves find out the real
objects and functions of this legislation. I come from a city second to none in what it has done in connection with the air force and non-permanent militia, but I can say that at the present time there is great difficulty in getting recruits for the auxiliary air force, and non-permanent militia, and there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among our younger people. They believe that by this amendment the government is injuring recruiting. In the two wars there was great interest shown in the air force. Of course at the time of the first great war it was the Royal Air Force; after that we had our own air force. Many young men who had been in the militia joined the air force during the second war. Some of them had cadet training, which for those under fourteen is now being wiped out in the public schools. When they got to be sixteen or seventeen years of age they began to hang around these amateur air clubs, and later graduated to the air force.
I believe this provision of one-quarter allowance is most unfair; it should be put back to one-half for the non-permanent- active militia. The benefits which were set out last session, according to the statement by the minister, now are being reduced from one-half to one-quarter, and he considers that a fair provision. It is hard enough to get recruits for either the auxiliary air squadrons or the non-permanent militia; it is getting harder all the time. Only the other day a commanding officer told me they are even having a hard time getting recruits for the militia from the schools, on which they used to rely for many of their men. I have seen some parades, and many of those taking part did not seem to be any older than fourteen, fifteen or sixteen. For us to pass an amendment to this pension act so soon after the ending of the war I think is a retrograde step. It is not only going to hurt recruiting for the air force, but also for the militia and the naval reserve as well. - It is inequitable; it is unfair; it is not in the interests of recruiting. Neither is it in the interest of economy, because later on we may have to pay for doing business in such a haphazard way.


Mr. LENNARD:: Last evening I asked the minister the names of those who composed the interdepartmental committee, or rather those who set up these regulations. Could he give us the names of those who belonged to the interdepartmental committee, who drew up these regulations on which we are passing now?


Brooke Claxton: There are no regulations. IVhat I said was that this matter had been looked into by an interdepartmental commit-
Militia Pension Act

tee which made its report to the government. That was advice to the government, on which it put forward this measure last year. I think at that time the name of the chairman of the committee was announced. He was Mr. Finlayson, the superintendent of insurance. It was an interservice committee with civilian and military personnel.


Frank Exton Lennard: Could the minister at some later time give the names of that committee?


Brooke Claxton: No, certainly not.


Frank Exton Lennard: Why not?


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I understand that the Canadian officers' training corps at the universities receive the benefit of this provision. I do not think they are any more in the army than are the cadets of the Royal Military College. Those cadets have been the backbone of the reserve army, and have been responsible to a great extent for keeping our regiments together. It is true that many of those men went to the Royal Military College with the intention of entering the permanent force, but I see no reason why they should be discriminated against in this instance. Certainly when they attend that military college they have a better idea that they are going to go into the army than they do if they are attending university. I see no reason why the Canadian officers' training corps should have an advantage over the men who attend the Royal Military College.
The minister said there would be a great deal of difficulty in adding the Royal Military College in this instance.


Brooke Claxton: I did not say anything at all about a difficulty.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Excuse me, the minister did; he said there would be a good deal of legal difficulty.


Brooke Claxton: No, I said nothing about legal difficulty.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: That the whole act would have to be amended, and that sort of thing.


Brooke Claxton: I never mentioned that.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: All the minister has to do is to give a little consideration to the college which did so much for this country during two wars. He could add a provision to include the Royal Military College and Royal Roads; that is all there is to it.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: I should like to answer the argument offered by the minister with respect to certain professions. I believe he is not

familiar with the fact that when a cadet leaves the Royal Military College he has already studied twenty-five subjects, half of which have been military subjects. When the cadet leaves the college to enter a permanent force unit he is much better qualified than a man leaving a university without a cadet's training. I believe the minister laboured that part of his argument to too great an extent.


James Sinclair: I thank the minister for adopting the suggestion I made last night, one which I believe will help toward consolidation of the services.
Before the section carries I should like to ask one further question. An item in the auditor general's report of this year indicates that a senior officer of the navy, after being placed on retirement leave, had himself put on command rates of pay and thereby increased his pension to the extent of $509 a year. Will these amendments stop that sort of thing in future?


Brooke Claxton: I had not heard of the instance to which the hon. member refers, but I should like to look into it. The amendment before us does not touch that point.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: I am pleased to support the amendment, and am glad the minister has seen fit to recognize the common basis of national service of our army, navy and air force.


Frank Exton Lennard: If the minister feels he cannot disclose the names of those who served on the interdepartmental committee, would he give me the assurance that the three defence services were well represented?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On the title.
Mr. ADAMSON:: This would be a good time to say it is obvious there is considerable confusion about the whole matter of defence. Over the week-end a most important statement was made by General Crerar, and another one by General Marshall. We have this subject of defence, in all its aspects, directly before us today. In view of the changed circumstances in which Canada finds herself, I suggest to the minister, and through him to the government, that a defence committee of the house be established. We are no longer a colonial power. In force of arms we probably rank third among the democracies. The defence committee of the United States congress and that of the United Kingdom

Immigration Act
parliament at Westminster take up matters which are frequently not the subject of debate in those respective assemblies. If a committee of this house were set up it could have power to call people such as General Crerar or Doctor Solandt, and other experts and instead of defence matters becoming the subject of controversy, in the house, political and otherwise, they could be studied as scientific and vital matters, as indeed they are.
I would ask the government to consider my suggestion. Our status has changed. Despite our relatively small population, we are now an important nation. We may become a buffer state, and in a future war might find ourselves in the front line. Therefore in all seriousness I suggest that the government set up a defence committee of the house so that this whole matter of defence may be considered from that point of view.
In my opinion the bringing down of the estimates of the Department of National Defence in the last days of the session, so that they must be hurried through in hot weather, does not afford sufficient opportunity for discussion by parliament of these vital matters.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. GLEN (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act.
He said1: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill of only four sections, involving several amendments to the Immigration Act. While it is not the custom, I believe in this instance I might deal with the sections as they appear in the bill, because they are somewhat interlocked.
The first section deals with a matter of departmental administration. There has been considerable difficulty in providing for the identification and transit of groups of people who may cross Canada. This is to give that protection so that they may be identified in transit.
The second section of the bill repeals section 80 of the act, which will be inapplicable if this bill carries and the Chinese Immigration Act is repealed.
Section 3 is to take the place of the present order in council dealing with dependents overseas of members of the armed forces. It makes the provisions of P.C. 858 applicable to these
dependents. Already 63,000 dependents have been brought to Canada, and there are approximately 5,300 still overseas. The order in council was passed in order to give the right of admission to Canada of these dependents and to give them the same immigration status as the service men. The order in council will expire on March 31, and this section will enable arrangements to be made whereby these dependents may come to Canada. The provisions of the section are in exactly the same terms as the order in council. It is thought that the movement of these dependents will be rapidly completed. A committee has been appointed to look after the arrangements and1 see that these dependents are brought to Canada to take their places in our community life.
The other and most important section of the bill deals with the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. Since the war ended there has been considerable agitation in the minds of many people in Canada, editorial writers and the like, and organizations of various kinds throughout the country who have made representations to the government for the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. They contend that the act is discriminatory, that it singles out a nation which has been a friendly ally in the war, that the provisions of our Immigration Act work a hardship on the Chinese who reside in Canada, and that certainly is not a matter that Canada can lightly overlook. Since the war, in the deliberations of the united nations, principles have been enunciated and the Canadian delegation have put themselves on record with regard' to matters such as are contained within the Chinese Immigration Act.
On this whole question I find so many opinions expressed throughout the country that I feel we ought not to make hurried proposals in this regard. There are as many opinions on the subject as there are writers and commentators, but all do not seem to realize the responsibility involved. Our law is of a most complex nature, and the subject is so important that we must proceed surely and steadily and not allow ourselves to be hurried in dealing with the matter. There are so many factors involved that at the moment I simply make this statement to the country in general terms, that the whole matter of immigration is under review daily at all times, and we hope that as a result of these deliberations such amendments may be made to our policy that it will not only commend itself to the people of Canada but be consonant with the best interests of our whole economy and the destiny of this nation.
Immigration Act
[Stage Direction]
After all, it must be realized that the immigration we now take into Canada will have a great effect on the destiny of our country; therefore we must be sure that our ground is sound before we proceed.
Many have expressed the view that the Chinese Immigration Act is detrimental to the interests of the Chinese in Canada, and that in view of our position in the united nations and the democratic way in which we live, we are not justified in maintaining it. Therefore it was felt that as a first step toward an ultimate policy of immigration we ought to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act. We have come to the conclusion that that act should now be repealed. The consequence of its repeal will be that Chinese, citizens of this country, who have resided here will be able to bring their wives and children to this country. Shortly that is what it means. W7hat the effect will be in numbers of those admitted cannot be definitely stated at the moment. The information I have is that there are Chinese born in Canada to the number of 6,694, and naturalized subjects to the number of 2,055, making a total of 8,749. The remainder, approximately 26,000 Chinese in this country, are not in that position, and many thousands of them are over forty years of age. They may have wives in China, but they are not citizens of this country.
The effect of the legislation which the house is being asked to decide upon would be that Chinese who are not citizens of Canada would not have the rights conferred upon those who are Canadian citizens to bring to this country their wives and children under eighteen.
There are several other questions which can more properly be raised when we are in committee dealing with the clauses of the bill.
I know that many members of the house will wish to have further particulars, which I need not go into at the moment. We are taking this first step towards the removal of the discrimination against the Chinese. I do not say that it is the last step, because, as I have already said, it will be a matter of serious consideration for this parliament and the people of Canada to deal with the whole question of persons of the Asiatic race which will be acceptable not only to Canada but to the other countries concerned.
George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask what the minister means by "not citizens of Canada"?


Mr. GLEN:: Chinese who were born in Canada are citizens, and those who were naturalized are citizens. All others are not.


George Alexander Cruickshank: But they may become citizens of Canada?


James Allison Glen: Oh, yes.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this bill, No. 10, entitled "An Act to amend the Immigration Act and to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act" deals, as the title indicates, with two separate matters. One is the entry of dependents of members of our forces. As I understand the minister, the bill merely replaces an order in council providing that these dependents may come into Canada. I do not think anyone in the house would quarrel with that provision-which, by the way, is in line with the type of legislation we were supposed to be considering during this two-week period. If hon. members will turn back to Hansard of February 4 they will find that at page 82 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said:
. .The government will introduce about fifteen bills which, if adopted, will replace by legislation a number of orders in council which it is considered should in the national interest be placed on a more permanent footing.
The provision in the bill dealing with dependents of men in the armed forces falls into that category, but it is going pretty far to drag into this bill also a matter which has no connection whatever with orders in council or with the war.
The part of the bill which deals with the question of Chinese immigration is not replacing any wartime order in council. It is repealing an act of twenty-three years' standing. I suggest to the minister that regardless of whether the provision is a proper one or not, that part of the bill should have been brought down, as a separate measure, later in the session when it could be discussed by itself without being involved with dependents of the armed forces. This is the type of sharp practice in legislating that should not be approved by the house. I suggest that the government withdraw the bill and bring in a measure replacing the order in council dealing with the dependents of members of the forces. Let it be considered, and then later in the session, when we have disposed of the address in reply to the speech from the throne and are dealing with the ordinary legislative programme, bring in a bill dealing with Chinese immigration. Let us not try to get it rushed through the house as is being done now.
In any event we insist that we should have a statement from the Prime Minister outlining government policy on future Chinese immigration. Today we have had an explanation from the minister which he gave in seven or eight minutes. There we have the government's explanation of this important measure.

Immigration Act
That is not good enough for hon. members or for the people of Canada. They are entitled to a detailed statement from the head of the government, the Prime Minister, not merely a perfunctory seven-minute informal statement from the minister. Hon. members are entitled to more than that before being asked to vote on this question.
So far as it deals with Chinese immigration, the bill, as I have said, repeals the Chinese Immigration Act which has been in effect in Canada for twenty-three years. That act limited immigration to merchants and students. There is a good deal of talk of its being an exclusion act; but in reading the debates which took place in 1923 I notice that the prime minister of that day, who is the Prime Minister today, was careful to point out that it was really not an exclusion act at all because it did let in certain classes. He slithered around the suggestion that it was an exclusion act. Some people are very good at slithering around these difficult questions.
What should concern us is what policy is to replace the act. As I have said, we want to know that now. In the United States they had a Chinese Exclusion Act for many decades. On December 17, 1943, they repealed their act and put Chinese immigration on a quota basis. In other words they had a definite policy to substitute for their exclusion act. I hold in my hand the records having to do with the passing of the new act, and I shall quote from the senate miscellaneous reports No. 3, 78th congress, first session, 1943. I refer to proceedings of November 16, 1943, report No. 535. There we find a report from the committee on immigration of the senate. It points out that the purpose of the bill is as follows:
The legislation proposed in this bill is for the purpose of repealing the Chinese exclusion laws, to p'aee Chinese persons on a small quota basis, and to make persons of the Chinese race eligible to become naturalized United States citizens.
Apparently they were not eligible for citizenship in the United States, but they have been eligible in Canada throughout.
The report contains a letter from Francis Biddle, Attorney General of the United States. From that letter I quote the following paragraph:
The Chinese exclusion laws were enacted during a period when immigration to this country was not restricted by any quota provisions, the quota limitation having been first introduced into the laws by the Immigration Act of 1924. The quota restrictions are a sufficient protection to this country against excessive immigration, generally, and against the possibility of an unreasonable number of immigrants from any one country. No useful purpose is being served by retaining the Chinese exclusion laws in effect since under the quota provisions the Chinese quota would be only 105 persons annually.
If Canada had a similar quota provision it would permit the immigration of about ten Chinese persons annually.
A letter from President Roosevelt is also found in this report; it reads in part as follows:
The Chinese quota would, therefore, be only about 100 immigrants a year. There can be no reasonable apprehension that any such number of immigrants will cause unemployment or provide competition in the search for jobs.
We find also this statement about the effect of the repeal of the exclusion act:
It should be stated at this point that no substantial gain accrues to the Chinese people, through the repeal of these laws from the standpoint of permitting Chinese to enter the country who are at present denied that privilege because other provisions of laws subsequently enacted effectively keep out persons of the Chinese race as well as persons of other races ineligible to citizenship. It doe.s, however, eliminate the undesirable laws specifically designating Chinese as a race to be excluded from admission to the United States.
There is certainly merit in making our laws such that they do not specifically name the Chinese. I agree with that. Subsequently, I think on August 9 of last year, the United States passed a bill making some provision for the wives of United States citizens to come in from China on a non-quota basis. Their policy is clear. The citizens of the United States as well as the citizens of China know exactly what the law is.
What is Canada's future policy to be? I am here today in an1 inquiring frame of mind, asking questions. What is our policy to be? Are we to have an open door policy? Are we to have a quota system for Chinese and all other immigrants? If so, on what basis? What are the numbers concerned? We are entitled to know. Is Chinese immigration to be governed by order in council 2115, which I understand is now the order in council governing the immigration of all Asiatic races except Chinese and Japanese?
I would refer hon. members to section 38 of the Immigration Act. I will not read the section, but in effect it gives the governor in council power by proclamation or order to prohibit the landing in Canada of certain classes of immigrants on various grounds, such as that they are not going to be easily assimilated, that there is unemployment in Canada, and so on; there are several other grounds on which such an order in council can be passed. In 1930 an order in council was passed dealing with Asiatic immigration. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that there are two such basic orders in- council-P.C. 2115, passed on September 16, 1930, which deals with immi-
Immigration Act

gration from Asia, and P.C. 695, as amended, including an amendment passed about a week ago, which deals with immigration from all other parts of the world.
This is the provision made by P.C. 2115: From and after August 16, 1930, and 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-
And these are the points to be noted:

the wife or unmarried child under 18 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 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.
Of course, the order in council does not yet apply to Chinese because there is this special law dealing with them, the Chinese Immigration Act, but when that act is repealed, Chinese immigration will automatically come under this order in council.
An order in council is not a very solid foundation for an immigration policy. Orders in council can be changed on short notice and without parliament having anything to say about it. This immigration policy should be in statute form. But if we are to carry on under order in council P.C. 2115, then surely the members of this house are entitled to have some definite idea of the numbers of women and children who may be allowed in.
The minister said today, "Oh, I don't know;
I have no idea how many there may be". He just threw up his hands without attempting to give the house the remotest idea.
There are some figures available from which one can make a guess. For example, at the time of the 1941 census there were 23,556 married male Chinese in Canada, and 1,177 married, female Chinese. That means a difference of over 22,000-22,000 more married Chinese males in the country than married Chinese females. The difference in British Columbia is over 12,000. There are more than 12,000 Chinese married males in British Columbia over and above the number of Chinese married females.
I do not know what these figures signify. They may mean that there are 20,000 Chinese wives in China who would qualify to come in under the order in council.


Mr. COLDWELL:: How many naturalized
citizens are there among the married men?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know. It may mean 10,000 or 12,000 wives could come to British Columbia under this order in council. Taking that with the children who would be eligible, the result may be that under the order in council we will double the total number of Chinese in Canada. The total number now is 34,627. I am simply putting an extreme case. I do not believe that anything like that number are involved, but we are entitled to know, we should get a far more detailed statement of the problem we are dealing with under this bill.
Another thing the minister should explain is whether under the order in council a single man will be able to go to China and get married and then bring back his wife-over and above the question about married men now in Canada. Another question is whether it will be permissible to bring in picture brides as the Japanese did for many years. Young women sent their pictures to Canada, were selected on the basis of those pictures and allowed to come in and be married here. These and many other details should be given to the house and to the country before we are asked to vote on this bill.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia, my home province, has to absorb most of the immigration from Asia. That has always been so, and I presume it will continue to be, because we happen to be facing on the Pacific ocean. The present distribution of Chinese in Canada shows 53-7 per cent living in British Columbia. The figure is 18,619. Then comes Ontario with 6,143, or less than a third of the number in British Columbia; Alberta with 3,122; Saskatchewan, 2,545; Quebec, 2,378; Manitoba, 1,248; and in the three maritime provinces a total of only 569.


Mr. REID:: British Columbia has more than all the others.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; the percentage is 53-7. Your arithmetic is good. Then these figures should be compared with those of the United States. In 1940 the United States had a total Chinese population of 77,504-in other words slightly over twice as many as Canada, with a total population ten or twelve times as great as ours. In that country 56-7 per cent of the Chinese live in the three Pacific coast states. Washington, our neighbouring state, has 2,345 against British Columbia's 18,000, although Washington has a much larger population than British Columbia. Oregon has 2,086, and her population is also larger than that of British Columbia. California has 39,556, and her population is six or seven times greater than the population of British Columbia.

Immigration Act
The problem for us arose over sixty years ago. The first influx of Chinese into British Columbia was in the Cariboo gold rush back in the early sixties. But the first real rush came during the building of the Canadian Pacific railway early in the eighties; and from that time on the question has been of great concern to all the members from the province of British Columbia. At the time of the 1901 census there were 17,312 Chinese in Canada. Between 1901 and 1907 only a handful came in. Then from 1907 to 1910 there were 5,927; between 1910 and 1915, 25,740 came; between 1915 and 1918, the war years, only 1,250; from 1918 to 1919, in one year- as from March 31, 1918 to March 31, 1919 4,333 entered Canada; from 1919 to 1920, 544; from 1920 to 1924, 5,566. Of course the Chinese Immigration Act was passed in 1923, and for all practical purposes that ended the immigration.
I am not going to discuss at length the difficulties in connection with the immigration. There has been difficulty in assimilation. Also Chinese labourers coming into Canada have had a far lower standard of living than our own people, with the result that there has been great competition with our own people. Even today in British Columbia there is a minimum w7age for Chinese, and I think also for Japanese and East Indians. Mind you, although it used to be written right out in the regulations, now it is not put so plainly, but with regard to saw mill workers, ten per cent of the employees may be paid less than the minimum rate of 50 cents an hour, but not less than 40 cents an hour; in box manufacturing, twenty per cent may be paid at a lower rate; in household furniture manufacturing, fifteen per cent may be paid at a lower rate. As I say, there is no specific mention of any races, but as I understand it the purpose is to enable the payment of a lower rate to the Chinese, Japanese and East Indians.
Always underlying the public uneasiness and unrest has been the threat of a large influx. With that threat removed in 1923, the friendly feeling for the Chinese people steadily increased in Canada. The Chinese are scrupulously honest; they are loyal friends and are very well liked in my own province of British Columbia and, I think, in other parts of Canada as well. I am sure that every hon. member of this house has the greatest admiration for the way in which the republic of China stood up to the Japanese aggressor, took a pounding such as no other nation has taken in modern times, and came through successfully. The feeling has improved to such an extent that in British Columbia at the coming
session of the legislature, which opens today, it looks as if the vote will be given for the first time to the Chinese and the East Indians.
I suggest that it would be unwise to destroy this good relationship and opening the gates to an influx would probably do that.
I suggest this course to the government. I suggest that Canada negotiate a treaty with China-and negotiate across the table on a man-to-man basis, each side treating the other as a full equal1-restricting the Canadians who can settle in China to those whom the Chinese government want to settle there and letting Canada do the same thing with regard to the Chinese. For example, I think we could very well have many more Chinese students come to this country than we have had. There is no reason why many of them should not be studying in our Canadian universities. They would make a great contribution to our universities, and, I think, to our people. Possibly Canadians would benefit too by studying in Chinese universities. Let us treat this question on a friendly, man-to-man basis.
So much for the question of Chinese immigration. There is a broader issue, quite apart from Chinese immigration, which the minister brought up this afternoon, and I was surprised to hear him make the statement he did. It is another issue on which we are entitled to a statement from the Prime Minister. Have the united nations any jurisdiction over immigration into Canada, or have we the right to decide who is to come to our shores? That broad question was raised before the united nations trusteeship committee last fall when some of the countries took the position that Australia and New Zealand had no right to have exclusion laws. It has also been raised in Canada by some groups which are using it to further their own arguments and trying to bludgeon Canada with the threat that the united nations will do this or that if we do not let them run our business for us.


Mr. LOW:: It should have been considered last year.


Howard Charles Green: Right here in Canada today we have a responsible minister of the crown making the same statement. Their argument is based on chapter 1, article 1, paragraph 3, of the united nations charter, which reads thus:
The purposes of the united nations are:
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion . . .

Immigration Act
Hon. members will notice that this deals with problems of an economic, social, cultural or human character; it does not extend to allowing other people into your country. There is a provision of the charter which I submit covers the very point; that is article 2, paragraph 7, and I suggest to the minister and the members of this house that Canada should make her stand on this paragraph, which reads:
Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the united nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under chapter VI'I.
My argument is supported also by paragraph 2 of article 1, which deals with the right of self determination of peoples. It says:
The purposes of the united nations are:
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people?, and to take _ other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Where does the Canadian government stand? Here is a question which is vital to the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people, a question they must face. Canada is one of the few immigrant-receiving nations. They are nearly all small nations, most of them in North America or South America, and Australia and New Zealand. I suggest that they must have the sole right to say who is to come to their shores. Just think what dictation by another nation might mean. If another nation could say that Canada or some other nation must allow certain people into her country that might lead to the breaking up of the united nations. It would be a fine way to lead to war. Suppose, for example, the United States said to us, "You have to let ten thousand or a hundred thousand of our people into your country every year. You have many vacant spaces; you have much territory; you must let our people in". Suppose Russia said the same thing, or China, or any other nation. Where do we stand in that case? This is a serious question to be determined by the Canadian people. Such a method might be used as a new way to undermine a potential victim. Suppose, for example, Russia or any other country set out to conquer Canada. Suppose that country could say to Canada, "Here, you must allow ten thousand communists into Canada each year". Where does ' Canada stand in a case like that? Canada must take her stand, and I am suggesting that Canada must never agree that immigration into this country is the concern of any other nation.
Then the bill brings up another issue quite apart from that of Chinese immigration; and it is an issue on which we are entitled to a statement by the Prime Minister. What is the policy of this government on Japanese immigration? On August 4, 1944, the Prime Minister made a statement which I am going to read to the house; it may be found at page 5915 of Hansard for that year.


James Allison Glen: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he is importing into this discussion something which is not before the house, the question of Japanese immigration There is no question of that here at all.


Howard Charles Green: The minister may not like it, but I suggest this has to do with the question of immigration, and I have a right to ask for a government statement. Here is what the Prime Minister said:
. . . the government is of the view that, having regard to the strong feeling that has been aroused against the Japanese during the war and to the extreme difficulty of assimilating Japanese persons in Canada, immigration of Japanese into this country should not be allowed after the war. It is realized, of course, that no declaration of this type can or should be attempted which would be binding indefinitely into the future. Nevertheless, as a guiding principle in the years after the war, it is felt that the migration of Japanese should not be permitted.
That was a clear-cut statement by the Prime Minister of this country and we expect it to be lived up to.


James Allison Glen: I suggested before, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is introducing into the discussion of this bill something which does not arise from it. The hon. gentleman is referring to the Japanese, who at the moment are still alien enemies. Any policy dealing with the Japanese certainly cannot be considered at the present time, and I suggest, therefore, that the hon. gentleman confine himself to the issue before us.


Howard Charles Green: I just want to ask these questions: How does the government propose to keep out the Japanese, and under what order in council are they being kept out at the present time?


James Allison Glen: I must ask for your ruling, Mr Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: I am all through; I have nothing more to say on that.


James Allison Glen: The hon. gentleman has introduced something which may be the subject of further discussion, and I am taking the position now that the reference by the hon. member to the Japanese is not within the purview of this bill at all. In view of the

Immigration Act
fact that Japan is at present an alien enemy country, I suggest that we are not dealing with the nationals of that country, and that the policy as far as Japan is concerned can be determined only after a peace treaty is signed.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that it is in order, because I was going to say a change might be made in the Chinese Immigration Act by substituting the word "Japanese" throughout that act for "Chinese" rather than repealing the act; and I submit that is in order on a discussion of this repeal measure.


James Sinclair: I
should like to speak to the point of order in support of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). We are discussing the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act, which to all intents and purposes was an exclusion act. So I think it is quite fair to discuss other exclusion acts or exclusion orders in council which this government has passed.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: On second reading, of course, it is usual to discuss the general principle underlying the bill. This bill refers to the Immigration Act and also in particular to the Chinese Immigration Act. The minister in charge of the bill has suggested that the question of the immigration of Japanese into this country should not be considered at this time, as the Japanese are alien enemies and are not being admitted. I think probably there will be a feeling on the part of hon. members that the question of the Japanese might well be left in abeyance for the present.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I ask a question on the point of order? The other day I heard the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs say that as yet it had not been decided when the war would be declared over. Are they enemies now, or are they being welcomed down here? They are still here.


Howard Charles Green: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, once more I would ask that this house and this country, before this bill is passed, be given full details concerning Chinese immigration that will be allowed if the Chinese Immigration Act is repealed, and what will be the future policy in regard to Chinese immigration. Also we should be told the policy of this government toward the suggested united nations control over immigration into Canada, and in the third place we should be told the policy of this government concerning Japanese immigration.


Mr. W. ROSS THATCHER (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the explanation given by the minister, and to the
remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). The major change proposed by the bill, as I understand it, is the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act.
As hon. members realize, this act has singled out the Chinese people for a kind of treatment which Canada does not apply to any other nationals. It prohibits any person of Chinese origin from coming to Canada to make a permanent home. If I understand it correctly, the act as it stands is frankly discriminatory. In effect it officially labels Chinese people as undesirables, because of their race and their colour.
Since its inception as a party, the C.C.F. has always been opposed to racial discrimination of any kind. We believe that all men, regardless of race, religion, colour or creed are entitled to the same treatment under Canadian laws. In the past we have always opposed intolerance, and we intend to do so in this instance.
The Chinese Immigration Act is an insulting and unwarranted slur against a fine race of people, people, moreover, who were our allies in the recent war. The act was passed in an era of prejudice. Having allowed thousands of Chinese men to come to Canada, it then deprived them of the society of their wives and their children. To this group such action seems contrary to the principles of morality, humanity and social welfare.
The hon. member for Vancouver South said that he had the greatest admiration for the Chinese people. I am sure we all have. But would it not be a good way to show our admiration, if we were to allow those who are married to bring their wives to this country? As I understand it, the repeal of the act does not mean an open door to Chinese immigration. It will place the Chinese people under the same regulations as apply to the nations of other foreign countries. This group, therefore, welcomes the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act, and I believe I can say that the members of this group will support this action unanimously.
I should like to make a few comments on the Immigration Act, as it is now before us. I cannot refrain from expressing concern over the continued failure of the government to adopt a long-term immigration policy. Last session the house debated a resolution which in effect asked for such a policy. Numerous speakers, representative of all political parties, expressed themselves in favour of that resolution. Last year, too, the senate did some admirable work in this connection, when it brought in a comprehensive report recommending material changes in the Immigration Act.
Immigration Act

I believe many hon. members hoped that last session we would see definite action in connection with immigration. But what happened? On May 29 the cabinet nibbled at the issue by passing orders in council under which, theoretically', Canadian citizens in the future could bring in some of their near relatives. No one will deny that this order in council was definitely a step in the right direction, but I believe that even the minister will admit that the directive was little more than a gesture.
According to newspaper reports-I do not know how authentic they were-it was indicated that officials estimated that at the outside about 5,000 people a year would be affected by the order in council. What is even more disturbing are the difficulties and red tape which the immigrants meet in trying to come to Canada, even though they qualify under the order in council.
Mr. CRUICKSHANIv: Speaking to a point of order; the hon. member for Vancouver South who, I thought, was following the regulations strictly, was called to order. If what the hon. member who is now speaking is saying has anything to do with the bill before the house, I should like to have a ruling to that effect.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: I understand he was not called to order, but the house asked him to refrain from discussing the Japanese question and other matters.


Mr. CROLL:: I have before me the words used by the minister when he spoke to this matter. He spoke of the general policy of mmigration, and used the words, "slowly and steadily'"-I wrote them down-and opened the subject for discussion at that time. Consequently the hon. member is quite in order.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right; the hon. member is in order.


William Ross Macdonald: I thought it was agreed by' both sides of the house that the subject of Japanese immigration should be left in abey'ance, because the Japanese were alien enemies.


Major James William Coldwell: Silence gave consent.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I was saying that I find it disturbing that immigrants who have qualified under the order in council passed last May are still having difficulty in coming to Canada. At least a dozen persons in my constituency have asked me to help them bring their relatives to Canada. On each occasion I have checked with the immigration branch and have learned that these people have met the required qualifications. So far, however,

none of them has been allowed to come to Canada. I do not know whether this is because of a lack of transportation, or what it is, but they have not y'et arrived here. I believe dozens of other members have had similar experiences.


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is now introducing a discussion on general immigration policy, W'hich is already set out on the statute books. When I made the statement to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Spa-dina I was referring to the general policy that would! be evolved. When my estimates are before the committee there will be opportunity to discuss those matters, and that is the time when they should be discussed, namely when I am asking for money to carry on the immigration policy of the government.
At the present time, however, we are dealing only with two items, namely those of dependents and the Chinese Immigration Act. I suggest that those are the only subjects before the house, and they alone should be spoken to. The general argument upon which the hon. member is now embarking is one which can be offered when the estimates are before the committee. Meantime I am stating that what he says does not fall within the four walls of the bill before the house.


Major James William Coldwell: I wish to disagree with the minister's interpretation. If we look at the bill we shall see that it deale generally with immigration. It deals in particular with transportation and admission of persons under bond, and a number of other factors which come under our Immigration Act.
I suggest to the minister that the debate is one on the provisions of the Immigration Act, as implied in the sections of the bill. I submit, further, and with all due respect, that Mr. Speaker should not support the minister's contention, although I frankly admit that if his advice were taken the debate would be considerably shortened.
I must say, however, that I do mot agree with the point raised by the minister. In my view hon. members must act according to their judgment in the matter, because I believe the bill opens wide the door for discussion.


William Ross Macdonald: I do not think it is the wish of the house to have a general discussion on immigration at this time. The minister has pointed out that it would be more appropriate to have a general discussion when his estimates are before the committee. The bill does allow considerable latitude, but I hope the house so far as possible will limit dds-

Immigration Act
cussion to the provisions of the bill, and leave a general discussion of immigration to a later date.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that surely it is not a question of what we agree to do as members. Either we have the right now to discuss this question fully or we have not. Those of us who are objecting to the minister's objections say that there is the right to discuss this immigration question in its broad implications. If Your Honour is going to rule against us on that, of course we have the right to test the opinion of the house as to whether your ruling is correct. I submit that we should not be put in the position of being told:	Oh, you have agreed
that you will only discuss (a), (b), (c) and (d). Either we have the right to discuss the immigration policy in its broad implications or we have not that right.


William Ross Macdonald: I stated previously that there had been only one agreement reached in the house and that was with respect to Japanese immigration.


Howard Charles Green: There was no agreement on that.


William Ross Macdonald: I understand that the members are not going to discuss Japanese immigration at this time.


Mr. FRASER:: Why not?


William Ross Macdonald: I am not going to rule and I have not ruled out of order a discussion with regard to the immigration of other peoples, but I have suggested that such a discussion might take place at a later date when the minister's estimates are before the house. All I am doing at the present time is to suggest to the house that they do not go into a full discussion of immigration now.


Howard Charles Green: Then am. I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are not making any ruling but just giving a gratuitous suggestion?


William Ross Macdonald: I do not think I can make myself more clear.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. I shall take only about five minutes to discuss one or two aspects of immigration which I believe are important. Time and again the government has expressed concern about refugees and displaced persons in Europe. Yet the words of the cabinet ministers and the actions of the immigration branch are strangely contradictory. On January 30, 1947, the government passed an order in council, P.C. 371. adding certain admissible classes. I welcome those additions, but we must realize
that we still have no solution of the over-all immigration problem. The government has simply yielded a little more to public pressure and added another patchwork measure. It is like the doctor who puts salve on a sore. He eases the pain but does not get to the crux of the disease.
I criticize Canada's present immigration policy and our immigration laws in general for two main reasons. First, we still have no permanent long-range policy, and second, as a nation we still have refused to recognize the seriousness of the refugee problem. Last session an hon. member of the other chamber gave this description of our immigration policy:
Canada's present immigration policy is a policy to keep people out, rather than to bring them in.
I think that statement is a correct one. The government of Canada, despite its fine words from time to time, has displayed an appalling lack of humanitarian interest in the displaced and starving peoples of Europe. The war resulted in millions of these people being dislocated, uprooted, scattered far and wide. Many have been unable to return to their homes, and most of them are living in abject poverty. Almost two years after the crushing of the nazi power, there are still some 800,000 persons who are forced to live in concentration camps in Europe, exclusive of the Russian zone. They are living under military guard. It is true that these camps do not fly the swastika, nor do they practise torture, but they are concentration camps nevertheless. The only crime of the inmates is that they have no passport and no country to which they can go.
The most shocking fact about the plight of these displaced persons is not that they are interned. It is the fact that the allied nations, including and particularly our own. have the means to open the door for many of them, but have refused to do so. We seem to be getting used to these concentration camps. With hundreds of thousands throughout the world being starved, mentally tortured and beaten, Canada is standing complacently,-idly by. Although we have thousands of square miles of territory which are not being used, our nation stubbornly refuses to give sanctuary to any number of these people. Our harsh and inhumane treatment of these people is inexcusable. Thousands of persons who have sought sanctuary in Canada over the past fifteen years are today dead because that sanctuary was not granted. Surely this is something the department should act on, and act on soon.
Immigration Act

I believe that Canada is pursuing a selfish and exclusive immigration policy which, under the most liberal interpretation is self-destructive and internationally dangerous. For years we have found excuses for not having a long-term immigration policy. Behind those shallow excuses, whether we admit it or not, there is smugness, selfishness and narrowmindedness. The need for sanctuary is greater now than at any previous time in history, and the nation which ignores this obligation and plea of these refugees will suffer, as all nations ultimately do, which ignore their fundamental moral responsibilities.
The Atlantic charter and the four freedoms should mean something more than a piece of paper, and yet that is all they have meant to hundreds of thousands of persons in Europe. I do not wish to be presumptuous, but I say in all sincerity to this parliament that, unless Canada takes some action on the refugee problem in the near future, unless she takes a more humane and more Christian attitude to these people in Europe in their hour of need, our negligence will go down as one of the dark spots in our history.
The condition of these displaced people, which is beyond description, pleads for them, and our country, in the interests of justice and humanity, cannot indefinitely ignore that plea.
I realize that wide-open immigration is not feasible at this time; there are difficulties in the way, such as transportation and housing. But that should not prevent this parliament from enunciating a long-term policy and doing so quickly. The programme should be a flexible one, taking into consideration from year to year the labour needs of our nation. I believe that parliament could do much worse than adopt at this session in large part the recommendations made by the senate committee last fall. Along with the hon. member for Vancouver South, I would welcome a statement from the minister or the Prime Minister as to what Canada is going to do in the future about immigration.


James Allison Glen: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, which I raised previously, the hon. member's speech is an illustration of the need for a ruling from the Chair. In the first part of his remarks he spoke to what is before the house, but since then he has spoken on the general policy of immigration, and particularly about refugees, with which this bill has nothing to do. Might I suggest, as Your Honour did from the Chair, that we should confine ourselves to what is contained in the bill and deal with the subject that is most under discussion, the question of Chinese immigration. Surely there is sufficient matter 
in that to content any hon. member who desires to speak on this bill. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the debate should take place within the four corners of this bill and that a general dscussion of our immigration policy is wholly foreign to the bill. There is plenty of opportunity for any lion, member to express his views on immigration generally when the estimates are before the house.


Mr. MacINNIS:: You are not making a ruling on this point of order, Mr. Speaker?


William Ross Macdonald: No point of order has been raised. I understood the minister to make a suggestion to the house.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate, my first word is to say that I am in agreement with the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). May I say to you, sir, and through you to the members, that it is my prophecy that more speakers will be heard from British Columbia in this debate than perhaps from any other province in Canada, and for the reason that we in British Columbia have been the gateway for the entry into Canada of immigrants from Asiatic countries. We have been closer to the problem than have hon. members from other provinces. As a matter of fact, 'the problem is entirely unknown in certain sections of Canada because they are three or four thousand miles away from it.
I wanted to give my own personal views regarding the introduction of this bill. I have always felt that a grave injustice was done the people from China when compared with others who came from Japan, and I have so stated both in the house and in public on many occasions. I could never see the reason for the government of Canada saying to those from China. "You cannot come here", and yet at one time holding pretty nearly an open door to those who came from Japan. Now the shoe is on the other foot; Japan is down, and we are taking the stand which we should have taken many years ago. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South when he challenges the minister and asks him, what is the government's policy? I believe that most hon. members would be in agreement with this measure, but we fear where it will lead. I noted that in his speech the minister said: "This is the first step." To me that was a very important statement indeed. What of the second or perhaps third step?
In his opening remarks the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) came out wholeheartedly for the measure. I am wondering whether he and his party are supporting the stand which was taken by Mr. Mosher last

Immigration Act
year before the senate committee, and of which few hon. members are aware. He appeared on the future immigration policy of Canada and, speaking before the senate committee on Thursday, July 25, he made remarks similar to those used by the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. ZAPLITNY:: What page?


Thomas Reid: I am quoting from the report of the standing committee on immigration and labour of the senate at page 207. The date is Thursday, July 25, 1946. The Hon. James Murdock, P.C., was the chairman. Mr. Mosher said:
Assuming for the moment that some immigration is desirable, the congress submits that there are two points on which there should be general agreement:	(a) Racial discrimination
should have no place in our immigration policy. People from some countries may, because of their background, education or customs fit into Canadian life more easily than people from some other countries, and such factors may properly be taken into account. But "race" (however defined), or nationality ought not to be considered at all.
That statement might have gone unnoticed by many of us, but later the chairman of the committee pinned him down a little bit, and it is in regard to this, of course, that I take issue with him. At page 215 the chairman said:


William Ross Macdonald: May I ask a question, Mr. Mosher, on the earlier part of your brief? You said "racial discrimination should have no place in our immigration policy." Is it fair to ask you, does that apply to the Japanese in British Columbia?
Mr. Mosher: Yes, it applies to any race, class, creed, or colour if they can be made good Canadians. Because they happen to be of Japanese origin it should not affect the immigration policy.
Hon. Mr. Aseltine:	You do not believe in
bringing in negroes, do you?
Mr. Mosher: I believe negroes may be brought in with no more discrimination against them than any other colour, class or creed.
I wish to draw to the attention of the house a singular occurrence before that committee, because we have here the viewpoint of a man who knows nothing at all about the Asiatic problems in British Columbia, although he holds a responsible position in the country. He said he was speaking on behalf of 300,000 Canadians. He went before that committee and in effect said', "Let all who want to come in from China and Japan"-in effect, an open-door policy. I ask the hon. member for Moose Jaw, does he support a stand like that?
I now come particularly to what I mentioned a moment ago. Another labour leader takes a stand in the same committee. He,
however, gives the point of view of British Columbia. We members from British Columbia are accused of being unfair in these matters, but here is the leader of another labour party which went before that committee, and what he says shows that there is a great difference' between his stand and that of the labour leader from Ontario, who knows nothing at all about the subject. The stand the leader from Ontario advocates will not affect him at all in Ontario because the problem is not here.


David Arnold Croll: We have half as many Japanese as they have in British Columbia.


Thomas Reid: Ontario is very generous in that matter, of course, so long as the Japanese and Chinese all stay in British Columbia. They take an attitude comparable with that of the city of Ottawa. They did not want any of the Japs going into business here during the war. Do not interrupt too much or I may say something I should not otherwise like to say.
Mr. Bengough appeared before the committee, and: I ask all hon. members to note what he said. He knew something of the situation in British Columbia, just as we do. The chairman asked him this question:


William Ross Macdonald: May I ask a question, Mr. Bengough? You state the platform of principles of your congress is "exclusion of all races that cannot be properly assimilated into the proper life of Canada"?
Hon. members will notice that he uses the same argument as we do, the unassimilability of certain races that come to this country. I continue with the chairman's question:
Just what does that mean? I asked the question of Mr. Mosher concerning the Japanese, and I should like your thought on what that platform of principles means.
Mr. Bengough:	Of course we all subscribe
to the principle that there should be no racial discrimination. In an international way the Japanese might be good brothers and sisters, but if they do not recommend themselves as sons-in-law or sisters-in-law then I think that is the test. If we do not accept that principle then, whether we like it or not, whether or not we admit them becomes a racial question.


William Ross Macdonald: Yrou do hold that they cannot be properly assimilated into the national life of Canada?
Mr. Bengough:	I would say that they could
not, because they are a fixed and distinct race and remain that way in Canada.
Here is another labour leader, Mr. Speaker, but he is giving the point of view of the people of British Columbia, whilst others who spoke have been speaking from a point three thousand miles away in actual miles but fifty thousand miles away from the problem. We in British Columbia have been close to this problem for the past forty or fifty years.

Immigration Act
As I said at the beginning, I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South, who eulogized the Chinese of British Columbia. It is a well known fact that when you speak to anyone-and I am saying this now not because the war is finished; it was true long before the war started'-and ask them which of the two races they preferred, the Chinese or the Japanese, they will answer, "I will take the Chinaman any time against the Japanese". That is the general point of view of the people of British Columbia. The Chinese in British Columbia generally speaking have been found to be people of honesty and integrity, which is something different from the Japanese. It is a well-known fact that when the Japanese first came to British Columbia they bowed lowly, but as soon as we reached the years 1937 and 1938 and they thought Japan was going to conquer the world, one could hardly speak to them, they were so proud and arrogant.
May I pass on to some of the other remarks I have to make. Here is one of the things we fear in British Columbia. I looked up the reference in the "Canada Year Book' of 1940. If hon. members will look at page 162 they will probably see something that may not have come to their attention, namely, that the Chinese are the only race coming to this land who have contributed money to the public exchequer. Over the past years they have paid a total of something over $23 million as head tax for entry into Canada. I think the hon. member for Vancouver South was not exactly correct when he said that they came to Canada in 1860, because there were Chinese in the gold mining camps in British Columbia away back in 1845.


Howard Charles Green: I mentioned the early
sixties.


Thomas Reid: It has been stated that the Chinese were brought to British Columbia entirely at the request of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and certain other employers. It is true that in years later than 1880 they did come to British Columbia to work as labourers and were brought in by certain large industrial concerns including the C.P.R., but when immigration really started you will find, if you look over the data on page 162, that the first poll tax placed upon them was $10, the second $50; as they were found to come in in great numbers the head tax was increased to $100, and still the influx continued. Then it was increased to $500 after a royal commission set up by the parliament of Canada had investigated the entire situation. This tax was paid by all Chinese immigrants except consular

officers, merchants, clergymen and their families, tourists, men of science, students and teachers; and note what is set out in this volume:
In spite of this restrictive legislation, the number of Chinese enumerated at the decennial censuses rose from 4,383 in 1881 to 17,312 in lOOil, to 27.774 in 101,1, to 39,587 in 1921 and to 46,519 in 1931.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are the figures now?


Thomas Reid: Something like 34,000.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There has been a drop.


Thomas Reid: There has been a drop because many have died and many have returned to China to end their days. But there is another factor contributing to the decline. Of the last number I mentioned, 43,051 were males and only 3,468 were females. Had a policy been carried out similar to the Japanese one, the policy of a Chinese woman for every man, the population would have been up to well over 100,000 in Canada. I do not think that statement can be seriously refuted. That is what makes those of us in British Columbia fearful of the open-door policy.
I agree that on moral grounds we have no argument against the introduction of wives, but we are fearful in British Columbia that if the doors are opened to admit not only the wives of those who are at present Canadian citizens either by birth or by naturalization but later the 26,000, and on top of that this is to be regarded, as the minister said, as a first step toward opening the door wide, then we may again see a great influx similar to that which took place between 1886 and 1930.
That is what we fear, and we sincerely believe that, if that occurs, most of them will remain in British Columbia, just as they are today. I maintain that British Columbia took the sensible, I will say the intelligent view back in 1904, because the provincial legislature of that day wanted to eliminate racial hatred and discrimination. They wanted the doors closed and so they passed an act prohibiting their entry. But the dominion government overrode that statute and the dominion government's views have since prevailed. I repeat that we in British Columbia have had more experience with both the Chinese and the Japanese, of which we shall probably have a little more to say in another debate. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have not heard enough from the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) as to the intention of the government, We in British Columbia are particularly anxious to know whether this first step is the beginning of a wide open-door policy. I wish also to go on

Immigration Act
record as being entirely opposed to the views put forward before the immigration committee of the senate by Mr. Mosher.
It is a strange turn of events. I remember that back in 1909 labour of that day-and I was a member of the labour ranks as a craftsman-protested against the influx of orientals. In those days labour around the city of Vancouver was unanimously opposed to the bringing in of orientals. Now evidently there has been a change, and I am wondering what the people of British Columbia will think when the stand of the C.C.L. is made known to them.
Before closing, may I say to the house, I am wondering whether any newspaper will print Mr. Mosher's stand, and I will tell you why. In November and December last I had occasion to speak in Vancouver to three service groups on the question of immigration, with the press reporters present. I referred to the stand which Mr. Mosher had taken, and in order that I would not quote him wrongly I read from the record of the senate Hansard. The result was silence in the press. I have come to the conclusion that the press is just a little bit afraid to tell the people of the country that Mr. Mosher, speaking on behalf of the C.C.L., has advocated the open-door policy for all Asiatics. I doubt very much whether that view meets the views of members of parliament. I doubt it seriously, but there it is, and to that stand I am unalterably opposed.
Before this debate concludes, I trust the minister will give us a definite statement as to whether this first step is the beginning of an open-door policy. If it is we shall continue to make our protests.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this bill indicates the barrenness of the government's policy on immigration. We have been treated to two viewpoints during recent weeks, the open-door policy by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the keyhole policy by the minister of immigration, and an endeavour has been made in this bill to bring together the different groups with a view to producing legislation which would indicate that the government is facing two ways and will finally, I suggest, please no one.
When I say that the government is facing two ways in this regard I recall that on January 27, according to the Canadian Press, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) announced that:
The Chinese Immigration Act, which drastically restricts the entry of Chinese into Canada
and long has been protested by the Chinese government, will be repealed at the coming session of parliament.
Then the dispatch went on to say this:
Mr. King said amendments to bring Chinese under the general Immigration Act also would be enacted.
While Mr. King gave no details of immigration policy generally, it has been recorded authoritatively that the government was considering the possibility of eventually establishing immigration quotas similar to those used by the United States but probably less stringent.
However, the government was not expected to reach a final decision in time to introduce legislation at the coming session.
One reason given for the delay was that the committee studying the over-all immigration picture was not expected to make its report in time for action at this session.
Instead of having an immigration policy enunciated with unity on the part of the government, we have here a haphazard, uncertain, halting, evasive attempt to bring forth a skeleton immigration policy. As a matter of fact, when the Prime Minister announced what would happen when this Chinese restriction bill was removed he said in part, "The effect of repeal will be to remove all discrimination against the Chinese on account of race." I say, sir, that statement is not correct; for the minister today admits that it does not remove all discrimination on account of race, but places the Chinese in the position that they may only come to this country provided that their husbands or fathers are Canadian citizens. So that as far as removal of any discrimination is concerned, and while removing discrimination, it in fact creates discrimination.
Some mention was made here of the united nations. I perfectly well realize that the united nations organization does not establish a supra sovereignty over Canada, but we in this parliament accepted the united nations charter and passed it. The united nations charter in the preamble provides this, in part. It declares that the united nations are 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.
Then article 1 of the charter provides for 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.
Article 62 of the charter empowers the economic and social council to make recommendations regarding a bill of rights, with instructions to set up a commission on human rights under article 68. In other words, we
Immigration Act

as one of the united nations accepted responsibility that no legislation would be passed by our parliament which would discriminate against any person on the basis of race, sex, language or religion.
A bill of rights internationally is today being prepared and drafted by a committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Franklin Roosevelt. On that committee eighteen nations are represented, each serving for a period of three years. A resolution was prepared giving the powers of the commission. These powers are set out in the following words, under the commission that was set up on June 21, 1946:
The work of the commission shall be directed toward submitting proposals, recommendations and reports to the council regarding:
(a)	the international bill of rights;
(b)	the international declaration or convention on civil liberties, the status of women, freedom of information and similar matters;
(c)	the protection of minorities;
(d)	the prevention of discrimination on grounds of race, sex, language or religion;
(e)	any other matter concerning human rights not covered by items (a), (b), (c), and (d).
What is the situation today? The law is set forth in the Immigration Act to which there are appended regulations. In so far as any person other than a Chinese or an Asiatic is concerned, P.C. 695 applies. Originally passed on March 21, 1931, it has been amended over the years. Of recent amendments one was passed on June 30, 1944, another on May 28, 1946, and still another on January 30, 1947, on the eve of the opening of this parliament. These regulations provide that persons may enter Canada on the terms set out in the regulations, namely, that they are:
the wife, unmarried son, daughter, brother or sister, the father or mother, the widowed daughter or sister with or without unmarried children under eighteen years of age . . .
And so on.
an agriculturist having sufficient means to farm in Canada.
m agriculturist entering Canada to farm, when lestined to a father, father-in-law, son, son-inlaw . . .
And so on.
a farm labourer entering Canada to engage in assured farm employment.
a person experienced in mining, lumbering or logging , . .
And so on. In other words, that is the law which applies in regard to immigration, except to Chinese and to Japanese. What we are doing here today is setting up a different basis from the general one upon which immigrants are admitted to this country. What will the position be? We have accepted our responsibilities under the charter. We have agreed to discriminate against no one. What the minister is asking parliament to do today is to
|~Mr. Diefenbaker.]
approve, first, the continuance of the orders in council instead of submitting the whole question of immigration to the consideration of parliament. Second, he is placing the Dominion of Canada in the position that when we pass this law we thereby discriminate against the Chinese, and will find, by so doing, we may destroy our entire immigration law by having under our united nations obligations to restrict immigrants from all parts of the world to those who are able to qualify under order in council No. 2115. In other words, you say to the Chinese that they may come in only on the basis that they are the wives or unmarried children of Canadian citizens legally admitted to and resident in Canada, who are in a position to receive and care for their dependents. Having regard to our responsibilities under the united nations charter, we may thereby be placing ourselves in the position of saying to the rest of the world that we will have no immigration here, except to the extent of those desiring to come from other parts of the world, being in the same position as the Chinese.
That is not an overstatement of the situation; that is my view of the responsibilities Canada accepted under the united nations organization. That indicates something of the hodge-podge which has resulted from the fact that this government has no unity on its own benches in regard to the immigration policy Canada should have. This is a matter so important and so fraught with international considerations that if ever there was a subject that should be submitted to a committee of the house to hear all sides of the matter, to have brought before it representatives of the external affairs department and also those who have attended international conferences, it is this question with a view to assuring ourselves that parliament does not place this country in the unenviable position of passing this legislation and then, an appeal being made to the united nations, being forced thereby to restrict our immigration policy to all parts of the world in a similar manner.
That is the first point I make. The second is this. What is the immigration policy of this government?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Nobody knows.


John George Diefenbaker: Nobody knows; and that applies with unusual force to the members of the government. If ever there was a lack of unity it is in the government ranks on the matter of an immigration policy. That is not the only policy as to which there is lack of unity, but it is the only one I dare deal with today. What about the Polish immigrants? Does it not reveal the wonderful

Immigration Act
immigration set-up in bringing into this country 2,900 Poles without a scientific medical examination) brought in without being X-rayed, then X-rayed after they were brought here. Do you know 'what it is costing Canada today for hospitalization for these people? It is costing more than $450 a day, and we are told that will continue for three months. How long must we continue to pay out almost $500 a day because of the inefficiency of the immigration department which, bringing in even so few as 3,000 could not carry into effect ordinary medical examination principles in order to protect our country? I am not going into all the details, but I have worked it out. Bringing in all these men, many of whom will be charges on this country, will cost us, in hospitalization alone, over $100,000 during the coming year.


Mr. MUTCH:: Don't we owe them
something?
Mr. HOML1H: Oh, don't be facetious.
Mr. DlEFENBAIvER: Last year I elevated my hon. friend to the position of parliamentary under-secretary; I appointed him but he is still disappointed. But, sir, I was dealing with the argument, which is defended by my hon. friend, that there is efficiency in a department that fails to exercise ordinary medical care in bringing immigrants into this country.
With regard to policy, there is just one other matter. What about the Japanese? Are we going to face that problem? Oh, no, postpone and procrastinate. The Japanese policy is going to be embalmed in orders in council which are to be attached to the omnibus resolution. The whole question of the Japanese policy will remain undetermined for another year, because the orders in council attached to the omnibus resolution deal with the matter of distribution throughout Canada, with the denial of the right of Japanese to fish on the coast, and all the other regulations made during the period of the war. That is another subject that should be faced, but it will not be faced for another year, certainly not before December 31 of this year.
Now, sir, here is the position of affairs. The regulations governing the Chinese are to remain in order in council form. Why should this question not be determined once and for all? As the hon. member for Vancouver South said, it is so easy to alter an order in council after parliament gives the government authority under the general powers. As the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) pointed out, the minister said that this was a first step. A first step where? A first step in what direction? No one knows in which direction the first step is being taken. No one
has any realization or any conception of the stand on Chinese immigration the government intends to take after it secures the repeal of the exclusion act. We have a right to demand that the immigration policy for this country be made more certain and more effective than can be the case through the instrumentality of order in council. Let us face the whole issue, the question of Chinese, the question of Japanese, the question of a general immigration policy, the question of what parliament believes is necessary in order to secure for Canada the destiny we believe to be hers. I repeat what I said in the beginning. Let us be very careful that in passing this legislation in its present form we do not place the Dominion of Canada in the position where we may have to appear before the united nations and prove to the satisfaction of the world that in fact we are not discriminating against any race and proceeding contrary to our pledged word. We accepted responsibilities under the united nations. We do not discharge them by lip service and then neglecting to act on its idealism. We do not practise its principles by intolerance. This country is great on the basis of the number of her races and the diversity of her religions. Canada can never achieve greatness on the basis of intolerance. Mutual respect, forbearance, and strict adherence to the principles and ideals of the united nations are necessary. Otherwise a year ago last fall, when we solemnly dedicated this country to the maintenance of peace by the removal of discrimination in all parts of the world, by the raising of standards everywhere, we were merely giving lip service to a principle we never hoped or dared to hope we would carry into effect.


Ernest Bertrand: I listened very carefully to what was said by the hon. member who has just spoken, and I should like to know if he is of the same opinion with respect to immigration as the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green).
At six o clock the house took recess
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. L. GIBSON (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, in commencing, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) upon what I thought was a most admirable and tolerant speech he made this afternoon. I believe that he made an exposition of where most British Columbian members stand on this question facing us tonight, and did it as well as I have ever heard it
Immigration Act

done. I believe what he said covered most of the points members from British Columbia would need to discuss.
I also most heartily endorse his observation that he is disappointed at the statement made by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) upon introducing the bill. I consider that the minister should have made a statement which would have clarified the government's position in respect of Asiatic immigration. The house was entitled to that, and I agree with the hon. member when he says that to have tacked on to this bill the Chinese Immigration Act is unfair to hon. members, not only those from British Columbia but to all hon. members, because this is something of vast importance to the country at large. It is not a subject affecting British Columbia alone.
With all the power at my command I would urge that the minister withdraw sections 2 and 4 in the bill, and that he bring them back to the house as a separate measure. When he does that I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should give us a definite statement on what the government's policy will be in respect of Asiatic immigration. The brief statement made by the minister this afternoon, to my mind did not sound like a statement at all. It sounded more like a petition in bankruptcy. Probably there was a certain bankruptcy of ideas.
Surely the government must have some ideas as to what it intends to do so far as immigration from all sections of the world to Canada will be. The statement made this afternoon by the minister is unfair to hon. members who are charged w-ith the responsibility of trying to formulate policy in Canada.
There was some discussion this afternoon about the first Chinese immigrants to Canada. They happened to come to my constituency in 1788-many years ago. So far as I know, that is the first record of complete oriental assimilation we have ever had in Canada. They disappeared into the wilds of the Gold River valley, and have never been seen since.
What worried me particularly was that, while the minister could not give us any definite figure, he did indicate that probably somewhere about 8,000 wives would come to this country under the present legislation. So far as I can ascertain, there are 29,713 males who either have wives in China or have not wives but who no doubt would go back to China to get them. I feel that, while at the present time there are only 8,000 who may be entitled to bring their wives in, there is certainly nothing to stop the other 21,000 from becoming eligible for Canadian citizenship. In such event they would be able to 
apply to have their wives brought to this country, too. I see no reason why they should not do so, if they feel so inclined. So far as I can see, there is nothing under the present legislation by which we could stop them.
When we bring in 30,000 wives to this country we see at once the situation that develops. The Chinese is a good family man. Each wants a son. So, to be fair, giving each of them three children we have a total of about
90,000	children.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Lambert Gibson: To tell the truth, I do not think it a matter for laughter to accept into this country 120,000 citizens of any nationality.
As a matter of fact, the Chinese have had a poor record from the point of view of assimilation in this country. The very fact that there have been almost no Chinese marriages with people of other races in Canada would indicate that there is not much chance of their ever being assimilated. When one considers the fact that they have been isolated from Chinese feminine companionship for twenty-three years, and that there has been no assimilation in that time, despite what one might consider provocation or urge, this would seem to indicate that if they have not been assimilated during those twenty-three years there is not any great chance of this happening in the future.
When the English and French settlers came to this-country they did not have their wives with them, either. Despite that, however, I understand that the history of the Hudson bay was founded on mixed marriages. Probably that is, why there are so many Mackenzies and MacTavishes in the far north.
The Chinese exclusion act was, of course, always wrong. My predecessor in the house, Mr. A. W. Neill, introduced a measure which had it been accepted, would have obviated the present difficulty. He wanted the exclusion act to apply to all Asiatics. To pick out the Chinese who, as the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has said, were probably our best Asiatic immigrants, was unfair and unjust.
I was rather concerned when I listened this afternoon to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). While I would not say that he gave an undertaking for his party, he did say, "We approve this bill". I am amazed that any hon. member would rise in his place in the house, after the statement the minister did not make this afternoon, and say that he approved the bill. I do not know whether the

Immigration Act
hon. member's group would undertake to support him in the stand he takes, but I hope every hon. member in the house has a greater sense of responsibility than to suggest that the doors to Canada should be opened to any Asiatic race, or any race from any country of the world.
I did not quite understand the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), either. I have deep admiration for his histrionic talents, and also for' his keen legal mind. I was sorry to note that he was not in entire agreement with the hon. member for Vancouver South. But if we signed a united nations agreement, then I believe one of the ministers should have told, let us say the less legalistic members of the house, what we were signing. They should have told us why, as the hon. member for Lake Centre suggests, our doors are wide open, and why anybody from any country can come in here, without our being able to discriminate against them. We should have been advised.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: He did not say that.


John Lambert Gibson: I am glad he did not. The hon. member makes me feel more comfortable on that score. If we cannot use some discretion in accepting the kind, number and type of immigrants who come to this country, then parliament might as well get up and go home. If we ever open the door to a billion people on the Asiatic continent, then we never shall have a Canada; in about fifty years we would be absorbed.
If we have signed any document of that kind, then I should be much easier in my mind if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent) were to speak clearly to the house on the subject. Are we to be the master's of our own fate in that regard, or are we subject to what the united nations may decide as to what is to be the future content of the population of Canada?
I have heard a great deal said about China's being a good ally of ours. I should be the first to admit that they put up a magnificent fight, and under most difficult circumstances, long before we got into the war. But I would remind them, and the house, that the procedure of being a good ally works two ways. Canada has been a pretty good friend and ally of China. If we can advance loans or some other assistance to China, so as to get those people on their feet, and to assist them in the development of their own country, I would be in complete approval. But I feel that this is a white Canada that we have here, and we must definitely limit the number of Chinese we permit to come in. We cannot let in any more than we can assimilate.
A great deal has been saidi about the magnificent market that China affords for Canadian goods, but I have always felt that Canadian citizenship is something that cannot be bartered away just because we want to sell something. We had an experience of that kind) in 1937, 1938 and 1939 when this government decided that there was a marvellous market in the1 orient for our scrap-iron and copper. We got it back during the war.
I believe that we should treat the Chinese with the greatest tolerance, generosity and understanding, but I would warn every hon. member that we have a solemn responsibility toward the generations that come after us to see that we keep this Canada white. I do not say that in any derogatory way, because I believe that a man with a yellow skin or a black skin is just as good as I am in every respect. But we have a responsibility to Canada that we must undertake and stand up for. The early pioneers in this country, the French who are so proud of their race, their speech and their religion, and our English and Scottish ancestors endured all the hardships of those early days and helped to create this great country, and I think we owe it to them to make sure that future generations in- this country will be predominantly white and predominantly British.


David Arnold Croll: Mr. Speaker, at noon today I picked up my copy of Hansard and turned to page 232, and there I saw a question asked by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) and answered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell), indicating that there are at present in British Columbia 6,750 Japanese, while in Ontario we have 6,710.
I feel that that qualifies me to speak as an expert, though I did not know it before I picked up Hansard.


Howard Charles Green: Probably they do not want to stay there.


David Arnold Croll: Then I turn to page 234 of
Hansard, where another question was asked by the hon. member for Yale and answered by the Minister of Labour. The second part of the question was:
How many of the provincial governments requested their removal?
He was referring to the Japanese. The answer was: None. If the British Columbia members do not welcome me as an expert on this question, and already I hear mumbling, I shall not talk any further on it. I am only an expert as of 1941. I therefore leave that subject for the present and pass on to the next topic.
Immigration Act

The minister in his opening remarks stated that the present immigration policy of the government is slow and steady. He and I, m that matter, are poles apart, because in my opinion this country needs, at the present time, an immigration policy that can only be described as bold and imaginative.
Now I will get down to the bill itself and try to stay within the rules. I welcome the bill because any time is a good time to correct a wrong. We in parliament refer to the Chinese Immigration Act. The Chinese government refer to it as the Chinese exclusion act, and the Chinese people in this country refer to it as the Chinese extermination act. We have been told that there are at present 34,627 Chinese people in1 this country, 30,713 males and 3,914 females. At the peak we had
60,000	Chinese in Canada, 'but over a period of time some have died, some have returned to China and the Chinese population has fallen away. From 1923 to 1946 we admitted only eight Chinese into this country. Even today it is well for this house to know that 82 per cent of the Chinese population in Canada is over forty years of age and approximately 60 per cent is over fifty. It is also worth while to remember that we invited these people to come here. We welcomed them. In this house today, to our credit, we have praised them for their virtues and1 for the contributions they have made to this country. Yet for almost a quarter of a century we have deprived them of family life here, deprived them of their wives, their children and their homes.
I think it is well for us in dealing with this matter that we ask ourselves a few pertinent questions. How do we justify our requiring these people to live an abnormal and unnatural life? Again we must ask ourselves, why do we enforce celibacy on them when we ourselves reject the practice? What right have we to mess up their lives? All that these people are asking is equal treatment by this country. Members of the house have already referred to Order in Council 695, which, in effect, says that those who are legally admitted to and resident in Canada may be permitted to bring in their wives and their children under certain conditions.


Howard Charles Green: 



P.C. 2115.

David Arnold Croll: No, P.C. 695. We are told, on the other hand, that that is applicable only to Europeans, and not to Asiatics. We are putting ourselves in this position that Austrian, Hungarian, German or Roumanian, nationals of countries that have been our enemies in two wars, may bring their families
[Mr. Croll.l
to Canada, where the Chinese who have been on our side in two wars find that their families are inadmissible to Canada. I think it is time for us to recognize the people who stood by our side. There is among the Asiatic peoples a great awakening that we cannot ignore. We need only look at India, Korea, China, Indo-China. We must learn something from what is happening in the world today. These people at the united nations have not only friends but allies, and it is within the knowledge of the members of this house that the Indian question Which was raised by the Indian congress before the united' nations was very embarrassing to South Africa and, I think, left a bad taste. The hon. member for Vancouver South called our attention to a festering sore in Canada that is being corrected in British Columbia. I think that, too, was brought to their attention by the Indian congress.
It seems to me that in our united foreign policy, the government and various groups in this house are going to be faced with this same problem, probably at the united nations, and unless we set our house in order I am sure that it will be high on the agenda at the next meeting of the united nations. We must have some explanation for it. At the moment I cannot think what our position will be, but we cannot ignore the fact that we pledged ourselves to oppose discrimination not only in theory but in practice when we signed the united nations charter, and unless we grant to these people a full measure of justice we shall have less reason to enjoy our own.
This country can afford to give mutual aid to the tune of almost $4 billion; this country can afford to give almost limitless assistance to UNRRA; this country can afford to lend millions of dollars to nations in need, but this country cannot afford prejudice or the appearance of prejudice. We cannot afford to be less generous than the United States, which is a great competitor of ours in the Asiatic world.
I shall now refer to a press release which was read by the hon. member for Lake Centre, but not in full. It was issued by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and is as follows:
Mr. King said that, at an early stage of the session, the government intends to introduce a bill to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act which is regarded by the Chinese government as an exclusion act and in the nature of discrimination on grounds of race against a friendly and allied people. The effect of the repeal will be to remove all discrimination against the Chinese on account of race-

Immigration Act
There the hon. member for Lake Centre stopped. I continue to read, and these words are, I think, most important:
-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.
The only general Immigration Act that I know of is covered by Order in Council 695. On the other hand, we are told today by the minister that it is the intention to bring these people under Order in Council 2115, passed on September 30, 1930, which provides that Asiatics must be citizens rather than residents before they are permitted to bring their families into the country.
I refer to another privy council order. On June 17,1931, Order in Council 1378 was passed, which provided that no Chinese resident could become a Canadian citizen without the consent of the Chinese government, It was applicable to both Chinese and Japanese. That is one of the reasons why the Chinese are not citizens. There was a reason for that at that time. In those days France, Britain and the United States had some extraterritorial rights in China. It was common practice for Chinese nationals to become either British subjects, French subjects or United States subjects if that were possible, and then they were no longer subject to Chinese law. If they were criminals they could not be apprehended by the Chinese authorities. In doing away with the extraterritorial rights, the Chinese attempted to meet the situation. I said that that order in council was passed in June, 1931. Under pressure from the Japanese government, that order in council with respect to Japanese was rescinded in August, 1934, and some other form -was retained which was suitable to them. I recall vividly that last year Russia attempted to tell her nationals in this country what they ought to do under a certain set of circumstances, and this government was quick to tell their residents of this country, whether they be Russians or whoever they may be, what their rights were. The same thing was true of Poland. The only fair thing for the government to do at the moment is to see that Order in Council 1378 is rescinded as quickly as possible so as to leave the choice of citizenship to individuals rather than to the country of their origin.
On its face the measure seems acceptable. It speaks of repealing the Chinese Immigration Act; but when the bill is fully scrutinized one can only come to the conclusion that it is a half measure; it is a measure which lacks in generosity and does not do away with the discriminatory practices. In passing this
measure, I feel a sense of guilt that we are not carrying out what I think is the feeling of the people of Canada or the intent of the Prime Minister.
The act seems unreal because it does not do what I think the people of Canada want it to do. So far as I am concerned, I make this simple, statement. I want people of colour in Canada to enjoy the same rights that I enjoy. For that reason, today I think we are doing the wrong thing when we could easily do the. right thing and do it graciously and generously. In bringing in this bill in its present form, we are retreating in disorder to what I believe is not a previously prepared position. We shall have to deal with this problem again, and we shall probably keep the question alive much longer than we should.
I am for the bill at the present time. That is as far as I can go. I hope that when the government has more time it will give the problem of immigration, as well as this particular problem, that consideration which is due to it, so that we may have something that we can deal with before the session has concluded.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the bill in question has been dealt with in an able manner by the different speakers in the debate. I was not here this afternoon when the hon, member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) made some reference to the recent movement from Italy of our allies, the Polish people. He made some reference to the; medical examination there and said; that he was given to understand that there was none at all. Although the medical aspect of the matter did not come under my jurisdiction, let me say to him that these Polish soldiers who fought the enemy, might I say, from the beginning of the war-


James Sinclair: And
very bravely.


Humphrey Mitchell: And very bravely, as the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) has said.


Mr. FERGUSON:: So did the Canadians.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall come to my hon. friend and the Canadians in a minute.


Mr.   FERGLTSON@: The minister is always boosting the foreigners.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend's ancestor's were foreigners before they came here.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, they were not; they were British, the same as the minister's.
Immigration Act


An hon. MEMBER:: They came to this country, did they not?


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They made this country.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Let us all wait a minute.


Humphrey Mitchell: -received just as good a medical examination as any member of this House of Commons of the first generation or the previous generation, and probably better.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They did not cost the country $500 a day.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind the hon. gentleman that when an hon. member has the floor he may not be interrupted without his permission.


Humphrey Mitchell: When you trace the history of immigration into Canada, I have no doubt that, if you could find out what the Indians originally thought of newcomers, you would find that they called new Canadians, whether Anglo-Saxon or anything else, foreigners. I can remember that when I first came to Canada I saw notices posted here and there, "No Englishman need apply". But the leader of the C.C.F. party, in common with myself and many other members of this house who came to Canada during that time, has made his contribution to the nation, just as we all have. But they no doubt said the same about Scotsmen and Irishmen. They said the same about Italians and Ukrainians, and the hon. member for Lake Centre said the same about Poles today.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, I never made any derogatory remarks whatever regarding the Poles. They are good citizens and I welcome them. I did, however, criticize the failure to give proper medical examination as indicating lack of efficiency on the part of the immigration authorities.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say tO' my hon. friend that those good people who fought the battles of freedom in this war, when he and I were in Canada, received a better examination than his forefathers did. I say, Mr. Speaker, that had it not been, either through ignorance or by design, however you choose to put it, that our United States friends filled up the North American continent, we would not be here to-day and this parliament would not be in session. In my opinion this war was won on the North American continent, and I am not talking about the sacrifice of human life. I believe that the last war was won in the industrial structure of North America.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with the bill?


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend would not understand if I told him.


Mr. COCKERAM:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I say that any time we criticize any statement made by any member of the government we are met with the retort that we do not know what we are talking about.


James Horace King: If the hon. gentleman wishes to speak to a point of order I would ask him to state it.


Alan Cockeram: My point of order is this, Mr. Speaker. When some of us interrupt we are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that we do not know what we are talking about They always have some smart reply and try to shout us down in that way.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this to my hon. friend, and I do not think there is any need for a point of order on this observation. The trouble with my Toronto Tory friends- and I lived in Hamilton for thirty years- is that they think they should govern by divine right. Thank goodness, they are the only people who think so.
There is nothing in the books that says we should inherit this continent by divine right. If you have something that the other fellow wants and you are not prepared to defend it you will lose it. What we have to do in the Dominion of Canada, with our twelve million people, is to fill it up in the light of world developments.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not with Tories
though.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will take a chance
on good Liberals without socialists.


An hon. MEMBER:: Now you are talking up our alley.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is a pretty long alley too. I remember the day when as a comparatively young man I sat in this house with my hon. friend's party and others during the depression, from the 1930's on, and they wanted to send people back to the old country because they were destitute through forces over which they had no control. I have a vivid recollection of that. To my good friend the hon. member for Lake Centre I wish to say, as the Minister of Labour responsible for bringing these good Polish people to Canada, that I am proud of it.
Mr. G. A. CRUICIvSHANK (Fraser Valley): Mr. Speaker, I have here a message addressed to me from* Riviere du Loup: "George Cruickshank, M.P., House of Commons. Take my seat and keep it warm while

Immigration Act
I am not here. Jean-Francois Pouliot." That is my reason for sitting where I am at present.
I wish to say a word about the subject before the house. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) has given an explanation about a number of things. I did not know what lie was talking about and I do not think he did either. Certainly it had nothing to do with the matter before the house.
I have heard a lot of talk around here by people, including the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken), that we must curtail discussion and bring the regulations up to date, and yet these people have talked for over forty minutes, including a friend of my party who read a speech for forty-two minutes. I am not going to read mine. I am going to say very little in this debate and I am going to speak entirely on this matter which is before the house.
One of my good friends from Ontario, in spite of the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), has shown that he did not even know what the bill was about. We are now speaking about the exclusion bill. I want to make this point clear : in so far as the members from British Columbia are concerned, there is no racial hatred at all. We are concerned entirely with the bill. We in British Columbia believe that we know something about the problem. We happen to live many thousands of miles from Ontario; but as far as Ontario is concerned we live two hundred and fifty thousand miles away. I have heard member's speak in the house tonight, and I have xead in Toronto Saturday Night articles upon the Japanese situation by members from Ontario who had no more knowledge of the Japanese situation than I have of flying the Atlantic ocean. I think my hon. friends from Alberta will bear me out in that.
We from British Columbia speak of something we know about. We have no racial hatred there. As a matter of fact, the man who will nominate me at the next election, if the British Columbia voting powers permit me, will be a Chinese; and that is going some. None of my hon. friends over there have even got anybody to nominate him. I am serious in this. My hon. friends over there from British Columbia speak with a certain amount of knowledge, but I do not admit that those from Ontario-and I particularly include those from Toronto and Windsor-know anything at all about the problem. They talk about something they know nothing about. The hon. member for Vancouver South may say that this is not a political issue. I would not exactly get out and advocate that anybody should vote for the hon. member fot
Vancouver South; that is, not if I could avoid doing so. However, he explained our problem in British Columbia, as I see it. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the members from British Columbia, with the exception of one, are unanimous in this, and that one cannot help himself. He is a very fine man, but he cannot help himself because he has to do what he is told. We do not have to do what we are told.
Mention has been made of the united nations. If there is any time when the united nations have a chance to show that they meant what they said, it is right now. I believe that if anybody in Canada is entitled to a vote, the Indians are. We took the country away from them and have not made a very good job of running it. We made a fair job over here, but they made a poor job over there.
I do want to say this to the minister, and I am a good supporter of his. He comes from the same country as I do, Scotland. He came here a little before I did. I want to say to the minister that the explanation which he has given to us of this bill does not go down as far as I am concerned. I believe it is up to this government to give us a clear-cut decision in this matter; although I might not agree with it, I might have to agree with it. I think it is up to them to tell us what they intend to do in so far' as immigration is concerned, particularly with regard to the Asiatic issue and not give us that twaddle we heard this afternoon; and I say that with all due deference to the minister who is a good friend of mine. I want a decision from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to what the immigration policy is to be in so far as Asiatics are concerned.
" mTT. L^'CHURCH ^(Broadview) TMr! Speaker, I wish to detain the house for only a few moments in connection with this great problem. I have a great deal of sympathy with the present minister because he has been most patient and his answers to letters about immigration have been most cordial and pleasant. He wasted' no time in getting at the root of the complaints. But I believe that the time has come in this country, as I said last year or .the year before, when we should have a national immigration policy. It is now nineteen months after the war and we have no courageous, forward-looking immigration policy with vision for the people of this country from coast to coast.
Over one hundred and twenty-five years ago the discoverers of the country opened up Hudson bay, James bay, the Mackenzie and Fraser rivers, and many other territories like
Immigration Act

that, where there are mines, forests and many other great natural resources. I was in hopes that at the session' of parliament which closed in 1946 the government would have come forward with a national immigration policy, vigorous, all Canadian, along the lines which I have been advocating. I urge the government to do so immediately, because we have today a piecemeal policy which is practically no policy at all, a.ndl it is going to cost the country a lot of money. No doubt there have been applications from others throughout the world for local residence in Canada to engage in agriculture, lumbering, mining and in industry. That would be a good thing for some of the industries that are now clamouring for labour.
I want to point out in connection with the immigration policy of the government in Bill No. 10 tonight, as the hon.. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) said-and he is a lawyer with a very fine experience in the drafting of these bills-that sections 1 and 3 amend the general Immigration Act. Section 2 and section 4, deal with the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act passed in 1923, and contained in the Revised Statutes consolidation of 1927. They deal with two different matters. Sections 2 and 4 of the bill deal with the Chinese Immigration Act, and the government has already stated that it is in favour of the repeal of that legislation. I am not opposed to any reasonable number of Chinese being allowed to come into Canada, after the three' cardinal principles I refer to have been effected. I have very few Chinese in my riding, so it is not a matter that concerns me personally, though I never consider matters like that. It does seem to me, however, that before the announcement was made on February 5 that the doors would be opened for the benefit of these industries, logging, lumbering, mining and agriculture, which are1 suffering from lack of labour, the government had plenty of time to prepare a national policy on immigration into this country, in view of all our resources, in view of our transportation systems, with
22,000	miles of single track in one railway system and 25,000 miles of single track in the other, with the vast amount of money that has been spent on our canals, and with the developments that have taken place in connection with air travel. I say, bearing all' this in mind, the government should have come along with a forward-looking aggressive immigration policy.
What have we in regard- to the present policy? Last year I urged that during the recess the government, should draft some scheme which would enable us to bring to this country from the old land large numbers of people who 
have been displaced by the totalitarian policies adopted over there in regard to industry. Take the textile industry, coal and electricity, the cotton industry and' many other industries which have been affected in the old' country, with tens of thousands of people out of work, with no coal, no cheap light and fuel, with transportation services choked and all the rest of it. How can any man conduct his business over there at the present time? So I say that this is the time we should have a forward British-looking immigration policy.
Last year I called the attention of hon. members to what the people of Australia and New Zealand had done. They adopted a policy of British immigration, in connection with which they laid down three cardinal principles which I urged should be made the backbone of the whole immigration policy in this country. What were those principles? The first had to do with migration within the empire, and I referred to England, Ireland and Scotland in that connection. It was announced by the transportation companies that one hundred thousand people were waiting at the immigration offices, desiring to go to the dominions. We had no immigration reception offices at Glasgow, no office at Belfast and none at Liverpool. Some additional offices are to be opened soon, I believe, and they may be open now. I do not wish to contradict the minister, because I have a great deal of regard for him and for the patience he has shown in this debate. The fact is however, that away back last September there were more than one hundred thousand people waiting to come here at the immigration offices in the old land. Should we forget all about those people and bring in others from off the seven seas? Should we forget the people who saved us in the darkest hours of the war, when they were all alone except for a few dominions, when the curtain of Europe was about to be pulled down, when we had the enemy at our gates? How could we forget about them? So I say one cardinal principle of our immigration policy should be proper treatment for the people of Great Britain and Ireland, who did so much for us during the war; not the south of Ireland; they did not bear a very large share during the war, but certainly we should remember what was done by Great Britain and Northern Ireland. People there by the tens and hundreds of thousands are seeking to get to this country.
Another step taken by Australia and New Zealand was to provide assisted passages for soldiers and skilled workers, and they are getting the cream of them. Would it not be a good thing for some of the large department stores and many of the minor industries in

Immigration Act
this country who are looking for foreign trade to bring over some of these key, skilled men from the old land? Look at what was done by Timothy Eaton and the founders of the Simpson firm, who were pioneers in bringing such people to Canada. Look at the heads of the departments of these stores; you will find that many of them were skilled men in the old land from Belfast and Glasgow and England, who were brought out to work in these department stores and eventually became heads of departments and branches. That was done under the late Timothy Eaton; it was done by Charlie Burton of Simpson's and by the heads of other companies. Of course Eaton's and Simpson's are not the only department stores; there are many others in our cities and towns, large and small; but they grabbed hold of these key Belfast and Scotch and English skilled men and brought them to this country. The present heads of some of these departments even to-day are the children of men who were brought out to work years ago in these large stores.
I do plead with the government that something national be done along these lines. I think we might have some form of assisted passage for people like that who are badly needed in various industries in this country, I believe British immigration should come first, then immigration within the empire. Then we have a large number of applications coming from the United States and from our allies on the continent of Europe. We should not bring refugees to this country, who are likely to become charges on the municipalities, as was the case after the last war. I was the head of a municipality at that time, and I can tel! you that between 1918 and 1921 many people came to this country to work in such industries as logging, mining and lumbering. But where did they go in the winter time? L)o you think they would stay away up in the north country with the temperature fiftv or sixty below zero? No; they headed for the cities and towns of Ontario and Quebec. Some did not have any relatives; they spent the few dollars they had and some became charges on the municipalities, while some had to go on relief. We do not want conditions like that again, but we may have them because, no matter how carefully the department may draft the regulations, they can at times by some be beaten nine times out of ten by people who are in the know.
So I believe the time has come when the government should not be afraid to tell the people of Canada and of the empire what their policy is. Are we to forget all about these people who saved our shores, who looked after us and looked after our own kith and 83166-22
kin who were over there for four, five or six years during the war? I would not want to see unrestricted immigration into this country such as we had after the last war, when we had a million and a quarter people unemployed many of whom had to go to the United States to look for jobs, including soldiers who had fought in our forces for the safety of Canada. I would not want to see that happen again; but if you examine the university lists next May and June, when the students are graduating, you will find many coming from the schools of science, medicine, nursing, chemistry, biochemistry, physics and so on, who intend to go to the United States to look for positions, because they believe there is a better chance with less taxation for young people in that country.
It is the duty of an opposition, I believe, to encourage the government as far as possible if they find that the policy put forward by the government is right, but I believe this piecemeal plan is all wrong. We have as yet no forward-looking, national well thought out policy in connection with immigration. We are making the very same mistake that was made after the first great war. I urge upon the government that some action be taken immediately to let us know the policy of the government, so that people in the mother country will not be making application to come here when there is no possibility of their applications being accepted
Sections 2 and 4 of the bill have to do with the Chinese Immigration Act, Notwithstanding^ what I have said, the government has decided on the repeal of this legislation. I sympathize with the people of British Columbia in the position in which they found themselves when this war began, with the whole coast from Vancouver and Victoria right up to the Queen Charlotte islands, 680 miles, totally unprotected and open to invasion. However, I hope the government will take advantage of this opportunity to formulate a national immigration policy. What is laid down in this bill is no policy at all; it is far from being a policy. It will not solve the immigration problem. It will not mean much more labour for the industries named, and it is no way to show our proper appreciation to the old land which has done so much for this country.
Consider the vast sums of money British capitalists have invested in this country. Why, the Rideau canal near the Chateau Laurier was built by the British government as a back door into lake Ontario after the war of 1812, and they built many other public works and railways and canals. So before the end of this session, whenever that may be, I think

Immigration Act

we should see to it that we have a forward looking immigration policy embodying the three cardinal principles I have mentioned: first, immigration from the mother country; second, immigration from our allies; third, along the lines of an empire policy on trade, defence and migration within the empire, so that we shall have coming to this country skilled workmen in many and diversified callings, who can read and write, people who speak our language and who can contribute something to the development of the great natural resources of the country.
There is no country when you look at this great north land, in which Providence has done so much and man so little as in this country. This is brought forcibly to our attention when we see the great resources of the country, the scientific discoveries which were made during the war, the discoveries in respect of machinery and electricity, chemistry, biochemistry, physics and transportation. But we are sound asleep in our immigration policy when we have not a national policy which will solve this problem and take much of the burden of debt off our taxpayers. This can be solved in a national and a fair way, before the eyes of all men, to develop the natural resources of the sea, the soil, the forest and the mine.
I am friendly to what has been proposed by some to the effect that skilled workers should be allowed in, with assisted passages, if necessary, so that they may build up some of the industries which are down and out. They would help the small man in industry, and the man in retail business. The immigrants to whom I have referred, who came here in the days long before confederation and cut down forests and built up Ontario, have never cost the taxpayers a cent. I look in the country around the city from which I come, and I see where those people have gone into western Ontario and into northern Ontario. They never cost the country one dollar, but they have gone up north and put up with all the suffering and privation in the old days to develop that great north country.
Sir John A. Macdonald had an immigration policy, as did others who followed him. I believe, if that policy were brought up to date today, it would be sufficient. I do not want to see anybody out of work, either, because of our limited immigration policy. That feature must be considered too, as should any such policy, so as not to interfere with absorption in employment for our own returned soldiers and our citizens.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I am going to join those tonight who have expressed regret that the Minister

of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen) has not presented something of a policy to the house, when we are discussing the important measure which is before us. I think the time has come when this country should have a policy in regard to immigration, and more particularly that phase of immigration to which Canada is committed by her signature, namely the relief of those persons in displaced persons camps in Europe, who are known as refugees and sufferers from the war.
I know perfectly well that Canada has done something in regard to this, perhaps more than some other countries have done. But we are not relieved from the necessity, by the relatively small amount we have done, ot considering a policy which will bring relief to those sufferers in the displaced persons camps in the several zones in Europe.
I want to express tonight, first, my disappointment that the government has not yet brought before us a policy in regard to immigration and, second, that the minister himself this afternoon did not make a more comprehensive statement regarding the proposals contained in the bill, and the general matter of immigration.
Having said that, I want to be brief tonight, and discuss merely one phase of the bill which has been under discussion from all sides of the house. I refer to the repeal of the Chinese immigration exclusion bill, as it is sometimes referred to. May I say to the hon. member for Eraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) that when he says any member of this party is opposing the continuance of the exclusion bill because he has to, he is saying something which is fundamentally untrue.
My good friend the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), long before this movement was organized in Canada, was an outstanding opponent of racial discrimination in British Columbia. And the founder of this movement, the late J. S. Woodsworth was, so far as I can discover from Hansard, the only member in the house who in 1923 opposed the passage of the bill we are now asked to repeal.
This movement throughout the years, in spite of the political disadvantages which were associated with this particular problem, has stood resolutely year in and year out for justice to people who lived in Canada, regardless of their race, their creed or their colour. It is because that has been our traditional policy that, when I saw the announcement that this measure was to be introduced, I gave it a wholehearted welcome.
But when I look at the bill before us. and the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which has already been

Immigration Act
read by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), I am wondering if the Chinese residents of Canada are not being subjected to a cruel hoax. What does this press statement say?
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 genera] provisions of the Immigration Act and no longer under legislation applying exclusively to persons of Chinese origin.
From reading that statement one would infer that discrimination was to be wiped out entirely-all discrimination. 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 thisdimited 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.
Remove discrimination? The hon. member for Lake Centre said this afternoon that, in this legislation, you are embedding discrimination in a statute. Let us remove this mask of hypocrisy' from the government. We are either going to have in this house legislation which has no discrimination, or we are not going to have legislation at all. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
You tell the people of Canada that all discrimination is to be removed, and then you leave it, in this legislation, embedded in a statute. Worse than that, as the hon. member for Spadina just read, there is another order in council which few members in this house knew about, whereby in 1935 we agreed not to grant Canadian citizenship to Chinese nationals without the approval of the Chinese government. I wonder what Canadian citizenship is, when dependent upon the wishes of any foreign government.
I say to you that if we are to remove that discrimination-


James Allison Glen: That order in council, P.C. 1378, will be repealed.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you. I am very glad to learn from the minister that' P.C. 137S, to which I have just referred, will be repealed. May I say this to the minister, that I wish he would rise in his place nowtonight-and tell the house that this bill is going to carry out the promise of the Prime Minister; that this bill is indeed going to remove all discrimination; that P.C. 2115 will likewise be repealed, and that citizens, regardless of race or creed or colour, will be placed on the same footing in this country.
A great deal has been said about the united nations organization. The united nations organization can do nothing about this. When we signed the charter we neither invited or permitted the united nations organization to interfere with our domestic affairs. But when we signed the charter we made a pledge. We pledged this country to the principle that henceforth no signatory nation would discriminate on account of race, creed or colour. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that any Canadian delegation which goes to the united nations organization with this skeleton in its cupboard is going to be fearful throughout all the meetings of the assembly that somebody will raise this issue. May I not be a member of the delegation when a matter of this sort is raised at the united nations assembly. I have too much pride in this country of my adoption ever to wish it to be placed in a position where it will be looked upon as something of a hypocrite in international affairs, and unless we remove these disabilities, that is precisely the position in which the Canadian delegates to the united nations assembly will be placed on some future occasion.
This does not, as was said this afternoon, open the doors of immigration wide to all those who may care to come to us from wherever they may wish to come. We know that is not so. We know that of the Chinese in this country who are married and their wives across the sea there are only 22,000, and may I add that many of them are elderly men. The majority of the Chinese male residents of Canada to-day are between fifty and sixty years of age, well advanced in years. We ask the government to remove the disabilities entirely, so that these men who have come to us and have made a contribution to our country, many of them, I admit, in a very humble way, may live the life of the ordinary Canadian citizen. Many of us in this house who have spent a good many years on the prairies know perfectly well how many of us have had entertainment and sustenance from our humble Chinese residents. I myself can say that as a young man in the little town where I lived, -when we were sick, it was the humble Chinese neighbour in the little local restaurant who used to come up to our shack and bring us a hot meal when we needed it.
Immigration Act

This country has compelled these men. to live under unnatural conditions, forced upon them a life unnatural to human beings.


Mr. ASHBY:: We did not use force. It was voluntary on their part. They voluntarily isolated themselves in this country.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend says it was voluntary. So many things are said to be voluntary when men have to move somewhere else to earn a living.


Mr. JAQTTES:: What did you say about the Poles coming in?


Major James William Coldwell: I will tell you what I will say to my hon. friends, Mr. Speaker. I believe that we should build up a Canada based on good will. I am not one of those who sow the seeds of hate in the name of a Christian democracy.


Norman Jaques: You wanted to keep the Poles out.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend accuses me of wanting to keep the Poles out.


Norman Jaques: So you did.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend is wrong. He will remember that, in spite of what some people may have thought, I counselled the admission of Poles who were properly screened to see to it that we did not admit men who had the legacy of Hitlerism, and we have a few of them ini our country today. Let us remove the disabilities once and for all. Let us not act as hypocrites.
I now come to the question of naturalization. How many naturalized citizens of Chinese origin have we in this country? Out of a total Chinese population of 34,627, there are only 8,746 persons who can be classified as Canadian citizens, the reason being not that they did not want to become citizens of Canada but that they could not become citizens of Canada. I am tonight going to make a plea to the Minister of Immigration and to the government of Canada to reconsider this bill and to do what the Prime Minister said he was going to do on the 27th of January. That is what I am asking. Do what the Prime Minister said you were going to do on the 27th of January. You are not doing it. You are perpetrating a cruel hoax, and if you allow this to go on after it has been pointed out to you I say that you are letting the Prime Minister down and placing the whole of the Liberal party in a position where they might be termed guilty of hypocrisy.


Mr. BROOKS:: Terrible!
[Mr. Coldwell.l


Major James William Coldwell: I think it is terrible.
I want to see this discrimination removed, and I want to see it removed on the grounds I have given and because I want to see Canada's name respected across the world. We have had several blots on the good name of Canada. This is one. Another is the fact that all through the years w'e have failed to give the rights of citizenship to British subjects who happen to have been born in India or to their descendants in British Columbia, and I was glad to hear the statement made this afternoon that this disability is to be removed. While I am referring to that, I should like to add this one thought, that I do not think any provincial government should be given the right to decide who shall have the right of franchise for the election of this sovereign dominion parliament. That, I think, is a matter which ought to be within our own control. I am glad to know that this disability is to be removed. We should never have recognized the right of any province to decide that matter for us.


Howard Charles Green: If my hon. friend will permit me, it was the dominion parliament which decided who should vote in a dominion election, and they based their qualifications on the British Columbia qualifications.


Major James William Coldwell: They based the dominion franchise on the British Columbia provincial franchise. In other words, they allowed the British Columbia legislature to decide who should participate in a dominion election. That was precisely its effect.
I do not wish to say any more, but I wish to make this plea in the name of democracy, in the name of good1 will, in the name, if you like, of Christianity, for the founder of the religion that most of us profess in this chamber tonight knew neither race, creed nor colour, neither bond nor free. The time has come, if we are to be regarded os the kind of nation that we hope to be regarded throughout the world, for us to remove every jot and tittle of this discriminatory legislation from the statute books of Canada.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I rise in my place tonight because I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is sincere in his statement and I believe the minister is sincere. I should like to read extracts from two speeches which I listened to when I sat on the other side and applauded the speaker. I shall quote from the House of Commons Debates of June 16, 1943, at page 3717, when Madame Chiang Kai-shek was

Immigration Act
received in this chamber and the Prime Minister stood very close to her. I can hear him say:
Our country is honoured today by the presence in its capital of a gracious lady who is one of the great personages of the world.
To Madame Chiang Kai-shek I extend the sin-cerest of welcomes on behalf of the government, the parliament and the people of Canada. We welcome Madame Chiang for what she is in herself. We welcome her as the devoted wife of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the great leader of the republic of China. And we welcome her as the interpreter of the needs and the virtues of the patient and heroic people of China, the first great power to resist axis aggression.
Then further along:
Madame Chiang speaks today, as it has been given to few individuals in all history to speak. She speaks for the struggles and sufferings, and equally for the highest aspirations, of an ancient race. She speaks for an immemorial culture. Combining with dignity and grace, great spiritual courage, she stands in our midst fully mindful of the toil and sacrifice which, over many cruel years, she has shared with China's valiant defenders. No recital of the noble qualities of her mind and heart could add to the respect and admiration with which we receive her in our halls of parliament today.
And then further down.
We should like you to tell the men and women of China how unbounded is our admiration of their unswerving fortitude.
I must quote also from the remarks of the Hon. Mr. Speaker who occupied the chair which you are now so honourably occupying. I can hear him say:
Madame Chiang Kai-shek:	In these war days
this parliament has in its deliberations and affairs created many precedents, and today we are making further progress. Never before in our history have we heard the voice of a woman, not a member, address us from the floor of the House of Commons. The occasion which provides so unique an event must have attributes and meanings so outstanding and so deep as to render this gathering appropriate and most befitting.
In all grave crises in national and international affairs we have seen great figures and great personalities arise who seem to embody in themselves the issues to be decided. History abounds with such figures. In the record of this present struggle, to the generic term "mankind" must be specifically attached the term "womanhood." Certainly in no other war of magnitude has the power and service of women been so universally employed, and inevitably there have arisen women leaders and world figures who by precept and example have set the standard of devotion, duty and sacrifice-
And every one of us, at least in that corner of the house, were thrilled when the then Speaker said:
Her very presence with us today is an illustration of the spirit which has sustained her through those years which the locusts have eaten, the triumph of mind o'er the ills of the body.
Honourable members of both houses of parliament, it is with modest pride that I, a mere mortal, present one of the immortals, Madame Chiang Kai-shek.
Why do we condemn the Chinese? Why do we not want them? Is it not because of their outward appearance? I had a Chinese class. When I looked across at this class and compare it with those on the opposite side, let me say that hon. members over there would take second place to them for handsomeness. What is it that makes a man? What is it that makes a real lady? Is it her outward appearance, or is it the spirit that is enthroned within the temple of the body? "Man looketh at the outward appearance but God looketh at the heart." I can say that the Chinese whom I have known have been kind; they have been courteous; they have been courageous. A Chinese citizen passed away in west Fort William before I came to Ottawa this session. There were few people who had passed away who were treated more generously than he because of his own generosity and kindness of heart. I do not think the government will be guilty of hypocrisy. They are not going to welcome dignified Chinese citizens today and then tell them that they must go somewhere else. If we are going to create within Canada a citizenship bill based on good will and Christian charity we will not look at the outward appearance but at the spirit and self-sacrifice of human beings.


Mr. J. A. ROSS (Souris):: Like many others who have spoken on this bill today, I must say that I am disappointed that the minister has introduced a measure such as this at this time. I also believe that it is time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a bold announcement to this country of the immigration policy of the government of the day. What I really rose in my place to do was to support the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to take issue with the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) with respect to the medical examination that took place when the Poles were admitted to this country last fall. I am. certain that there was an inefficient examination. It may well be that they are fine immigrants who rendered good service during the last war. Some of these chaps were located in my own constituency. I received, from the parents of very young families where these chaps were sent out to work on farms, letters which almost made my blood curdle. These people, chaps who were suffering from syphilis and tuberculosis were living amongst the younger members of the families. When they went to the hospital for examination an eminent doctor told me that some of these chaps had been suffering from those diseases for many months, despite the fact that they had been only some weeks in
Immigration Act

Canada. I want to protest against that type of thing as earnestly as I can.
Later on, the department of health of Manitoba protested to this government. They went further and said that they had not proper hospitalization to take care of many of the citizens of the province.
A few moments ago something was said by an hon. member about the Indians of this country. I am sure that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) can substantiate that and say that there are many hundreds in his riding who are suffering from like diseases and are not being properly taken care of. The department of health of Manitoba is not properly equipped to take care of this matter. Therefore hon. members will realize the feeling that they have when the immigration branch and the other federal authorities responsible allow people to come in from many countries without a proper medical examination, as was done last fall.
I do not care whether immigrants are Chinese or Poles or even Scotch, like the Minister of Mines and Resources and myself. They should have a thorough medical examination. Whatever is done in regard to immigration in the future, whatever lands immigrants come from, I protest against the type of examination that took place last fall, and I hope that the authorities will see to it that there is no repetition of that kind in the future. For the Minister of Labour to talk about what happened when our forefathers came to the country is not good enough. We are living in a progressive age and are studying health matters. I impress upon the minister that he should see to it that a proper medical examination takes place in the future whenever immigrants come to this country and that there is no repetition of what occurred last fall. I urge that, in fairness to our young people who are raising families in this great nation of ours.


James Sinclair: As a British Columbia member I feel I should rise and make a few remarks on this bill. My remarks need be but brief, because the things I should like to say have already been very well said in the opening speech by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). There is, however, one point which he made which has been overlooked in the subsequent discussion.
My understanding of the two-week gap in the discussion of the speech from the throne was that the interval was to be devoted to the consideration of orders in council which would lapse on March 31 and the conversion of those orders in council into acts of parlia-

ment. With that none of us will disagree. We have ten working days in which to do this, but to-day we have wasted the entire day in talking about a part of this bill which is not a war-time order in council. This Chinese immigration bill has stood on the statute books for twenty-three years. I agree that the time has come to remove it, but I do not think this ten-day period is the time to bring it forward. After Easter, when we are on our regular programme of legislation, would be soon enough. I am quite certain that if the minister had consented to bring in this bill consisting of section 1 and section 3 regarding the dependents of soldiers it would have carried in one minute and we would have had three or four more urgent bills passed through the house to-day instead of, I will not say wasting time, but at any rate delaying the passage of urgent bills that must be passed before March 31.
If the minister would rise in his place now and say that sections 2 and 4 will be stood over, I am quite sure that we could go ahead with the other bills even at this late hour.
I wish to refer briefly to another member's speech. My good friend the hon. member for Lake Centre seemed to derive considerable satisfaction from the diversity of unity, as he said, between the immigration policies advocated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and those apparently advocated by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Glen). I do not see the hon. member in the chamber at the moment, but I would tell him that we on this side derive an equal satisfaction from watching the diversity of unity as between himself and the hon. member for Vancouver South. It is true that one expects unity in the cabinet; but, after all, there should be shadow unity in the shadow cabinet between the shadow Minister of Justice and the shadow Minister of Agriculture.
One other reference. I listened with the greatest interest to some of the remarks made by another friend of mine in the opposition, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher). He made an eloquent appeal that we should relieve the distress in continental Europe by allowing wholesale immigration from that part of the world. I want to compliment him on the very great change in attitude which he has shown since the last session, because, as I remember, at the last session when there were measures before the house to relieve the distress among our cousins in Great Britain he took the view that the money would be better spent at home, on Moose Jaw sewerage.

Immigration Act
As far as British Columbia's standing on the oriental immigration question is concerned, it is nothing new. We have feLb this way for forty years. It cannot be laid to war hysteria, and despite the objections of the Minister of Immigration, we have never separated the Chinese question, from the Japanese problem, for the same reason that we have found! during our experience that they cannot be assimilated or blended into the national life as other groups-Caucasian groups-have been, in the past.
Undoubtedly the Chinese have been much more hardly treated by this country than the Japanese. The Chinese were brought out in the first place as coolie labour in 1780 by, I regret to say, British men o' war to work in the gold fields on the west coast of Vancouver island, and they were left there, when the British left, to be butchered1 by the Indians. Again they were brought out as coolie labour at the time of the gold rush in the Fraser river, and once more by the C.P.R. Their womenfolk were not allowed to accompany them, and for the most part they were brought as contract labour and had the humiliation of paying a head tax as though they were imported goods or cattle. All these things were done to them in an effort to stem immigration from China.
Although the people of British Columbia were no more enthusiastic over Japanese immigration than over Chinese immigration, similar obstacles were not put in the way of Japanese immigration, despite the opposition of the British Columbia legislature and of the people of that province, and the reason was easy to find. China was a weak and divided nation and Japan a powerful nation, and so we had the farce of a gentleman's agreement with Japan which allowed practically uncontrolled immigration of men and wives from Japan to this country.
These things, however, are all water under the bridge. I believe that those of us who voted for the citizenship bill last session did vote to give all people in this country today certain rights as Canadian citizens, and I believe the time has come to give the Chinese now in Canada those rights. But before we go farther with the bill, we from British Columbia want to know how far we are going when we give these Chinese who are here in this country these rights. Certainly it is an unnatural way to live, as these men have been forced to live, away from- their wives. The fact that in. twenty-three years so few of them have intermarried shows the difficulty of ordinary biological assimilation.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) made the point that no other immigrant group who came without their womenfolk failed to assimilate with women of the country. The other point, which was touched on by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Caldwell) is the fact that so few of the Chinese not born in this country have become Canadian citizens-some 2,000 out of 26,000, according to the minister's figures. It is true that there was a certain disability because of the understanding with China in 1931; nevertheless that is much the lowest record of any immigrant group in Canada, far lower than even the Japanese.
The British Columbia legislature is taking a forward step in giving Canadian-born Chinese who have been through our school system the vote. They are doing so at this session-at least that is expected-and the people of British Columbia would not object to Chinese, scattered across .the country, having the same rights as other Canadian groups as regards enjoying the comforts associated with their wives and families. We western members of parliament Who spend half a year each year away from our families will sympathize with the Chinese in that respect.
Before I vote for the bill, I should like the minister to give the house, and the British Columbia members especially, some indication of what our immigration policy will be as far as other Chinese are concerned. The great majority of the people of British Columbia today are prepared to give the orientals now in this country citizenship rights; but, after long experience with them, we do not want more oriental immigration, apart from the families of these men, from either Japan or China.
In conclusion, I feel obligated to make some remarks about the Poles. I had the great fortune and honour to serve with some of them in the middle east. The story of the Poles is not as well known in Canada as it should be. Many friends of the Labour-Progressive party and the Communist party have taken a delight in smearing them as fascists. They forget that when Poland fought against Germany, Russia had attacked Poland from behind; and Poles fought against Russia as W'ell as against Germany in defending their native land. They forget that the Poles who were captured by those Russians were taken back into Russia as forced, labour and put into concentration camps. Those are these same Poles whom today the virile and healthy members of parliament, who never saw a shot fired, such as the hon. member for
Immigration Act

Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), describe as disease-ridden. When Russia entered the war, she turned around and asked these Poles to fight with them. They were a little disappointed that these Poles who had been so badly treated by the Russians did not show very much enthusiasm for fighting with the red army. But the British offered' to take them and the Poles wanted to fight in the west, and so made a long trek through Russia, through Georgia into the middle east. The British had1 to set up rehabilitation camps in which to doctor and to feedi these men after the treatment given them by the Russians, so that they could build up their physiques and pass the entrance examination for the army and the air force. Pathetically few of them were able to reach the air force standard of physique. Most of them were really unable to meet what we would regard as Canadian standards for the army; but they were anxious to fight against nazism and despite their condition, they fought very well and bravely through Libya and Italy. Now the time comes when they are asked to return to Poland, to go back under the thumb of the same people who put them in concentration camps from 1939 to 1941. Why should they go back? But where can they go? I say that, as allies of these men, we have an obligation to take them, and to take not just the hale and hearty ones but some of the sick ones too, because their sicknesses are a result of what they have endured.


Lawrence Wilton Skey: Mr. Speaker, it was with great pleasure that I just now heard the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) speak so well of our gallant allies, though I regret, with some other hon. members that perhaps all of them were not as fit as they might be. I agree with him when he says that there is an obligation on Canada to keep on supporting our fighting allies such as these Polish soldiers and airmen were.
But in this selection of four thousand of them to come to Canada there were other features that were imposed in the department's effort to produce farmers for our country and to recognize that obligation. One of those features is that there were a great many Polish soldiers and service men in Italy who had relatives in Canada, but a large number of those men were transferred to England shortly before the selection was made. Someone may have known that this selection was to be made. Someone in their army may have known that there were a number of volunteers. Perhaps some of them wanted to keep that army in being. But in any event,

instead of there being a two-pronged selection of men and instead of taking in the United Kingdom forces as well, our selection committee went to just one section of the Polish army and made their choice there; whereas in England there are thousands of Polish soldiers with relatives in this country to whom they can go with assurance that they will receive a warm welcome, sustenance, encouragement and work.
Amongst those soldiers in England there still remain a. great many who are engaged to Canadian girls, and they have been engaged for many years. The government still refuses to recognize the heartache that it has produced for the young girls in Canada who became engaged to these Polish soldiers and airmen while they trained on our soil. There is a solution to this problem, a solution which the United States government have already produced. It is that we should pass a bill such as the congress of the United States passed and which is popularly known as the sweethearts' bill. This allows an allied airmen or soldier to go to the United States for a visit of three months; and during that visit, if the serviceman or servicewoman, as the case may be, should marry a United States citizen to whom he or she is engaged, then that allied serviceman or woman becomes a naturalized United States subject. I think it is time that the Canadian parliament took such action to assist the Canadian girls who have been doing everything possible to have their fiances brought to this country. Some of them have even tried to marry by telephone, which is a very unsatisfactory thing to do.
There are still others whom we should think of tonight, and they are the members of various European countries who have relatives in Canada, which relatives have already applied to our immigration authorities, have had the entrance of their relatives in Europe approved, and are waiting, and have waited for many many months for some action to be taken toward bringing them to this country. They are still waiting, and for all we know perhaps a year hence they may still be waiting. That is something the government should deal with as soon as they possibly can, because those people in Europe today are living with the hope in their hearts that they may be delivered from the displaced persons' camps or a life which is certainly not a free one.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I feel it is time that the minister answered the many questions which have been put to him tonight, and in particular the one put by the hon. members for Vancouver North and

Immigration Act
South, when they requested that the government keep faith with their proposition that we should be asked during these ten days to deal with orders in council only.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, much of what I was going to say this evening has already been said by mj' leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Consequently my remarks, like those of many of the other hon. members who have spoken tonight, will be brief. I think the most that can be said for this bill is that it is a very small attempt at solving a very big problem. What is, I suppose, disturbing the members from British Columbia, and which has shown the extent of the entente between the Liberals and the Conservatives from that province, is the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. However, I am not at all surprised at this good feeling and agreement. It is general in British Columbia and, under the circumstances existing, it has to be.
The repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act is something that had to be done. As has been pointed out already, Canada is a member of the united nations organization; we have put our signature to the united nations charter, and if it does nothing else that obligates us to one thing; that is, to avoid racial discrimination. In order to put ourselves in the clear, in my opinion we have two alternatives: we can resign from the united nations organization, or we can remove the existing discrimination. But the removal of the discrimination does cot imply that we are compelled to allow every Chinese who so wishes to come here. How they shall come is a matter within our control. That is one of the things wrong in this bill; it does not state the basis on which they may come to Canada. We do not know the basis on which the people of any nation may come here. If then we are going to avoid racial discrimination in our treatment of the Chinese those who do come here must be allowed to come on the same basis as the people of other countries. In the main, that is what is wrong with the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act. It leaves a void, and we should have something which would make clear exactly where we stand.
Two or three times during this debate it was suggested that someone or some persons, I do not know who they are, wanted to flood this country with immigrants. I do not think any person in his senses would advocate any such policy. Certainly the members of this group are not advocating it now and never did. But we do advocate equal treatment for every person in this country, regardless of race, creed,
colour or any other consideration. I noticed that the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair) mentioned that now the franchise will be granted to the Chinese in British Columbia; someone else mentioned the East Indians. They have come to the conclusion that this is the proper thing to do. Yet the party to which I belong and I personally have been vilified all across Canada for advocating that very thing. If it is sound policy today it was sound policy yesterday. I have in my hand some of the literature issued by the Liberal party during the 1935 election campaign in British Columbia. It is so filthy, so vile that I do not think it could be put on the records of this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, read it.


Angus MacInnis: I am going to read one of the best paragraphs, one of the cleanest. At a meeting during the 1945 campaign in the constituency of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), not only were they going to send the Japanese back to Japan; they were going to send me, too.


Howard Charles Green: I didn't say that.


Angus MacInnis: No, but you did not protest when your friend on the platform, supporting you, said it.


Howard Charles Green: I like you too much for that.


Angus MacInnis: You did not like me well enough to stand up then and say so.


Howard Charles Green: That was not said in my
presence.


Angus MacInnis: That paragraph reads:
Mr. Woodsworth, the leader of the C.C.F. party in Canada, had the effrontery and heathenism to announce in the Canadian parliament on the 22nd day of June last year-
That would be in 1934.
-that it was the policy of the C.C.F. party to grant the franchise to the orientals of this province and he gloried in it. Such a man and such a party should be sharply reprimanded by the electorate of British Columbia and shown that further favourable consideration of orientals out here will not be tolerated. The only way to reprimand these C.C.F. candidates is by refusing to vote for them, and then they will realize that we British Columbians are still free, w'hite and twenty-one, and do not intend to be the slaves of any yellow race.
This afternoon the hon. member for New Westirunster (Mr. Reid) referred to the fact that in British Columbia they always considered the Chinese superior to the Japanese. It just depended on which country was the more powerful, Japan or China. When Japan is the more powerful country we are kinder to the Japanese. When China is the favoured country the Chinese are the best people.
Immigration Act

The point of view of my hon. friends of the Liberal party and my Conservative friends for that matter in British Columbia was never on any higher plane on that.
I think there is another reason, in addition to our membership in the united nations, why we should not discriminate against the peoples of the orient. The orient is awakening. It is beginning to learn the ways of the west. It is learning how to use the tools and machines of the west and is coming to realize that we westerners are not the superior people they have been led to believe, for all these years that we were. They see the feet of clay, and it would be just as well if we tried now to make amends for our arrogance, failures and insults of the past. Perhaps we may get their forgiveness, though they have a lot to forgive. As I said, that is another reason why this Chinese Immigration Act should be repealed and why we should treat the orientals, the people of the east, on the same basis as the people of other nations.
Then the hon. member for New Westminster quoted from a brief presented by the president of the Canadian Congress of Labour to the senate committee on immigration. The implication he tried to convey to this house was that Mr. Mosher, speaking for the Canadian Congress of Labour, was advocating wholesale, unrestricted immigration of all nationalities and creeds. Mr. Mosher did nothing of the kind, as I shall demonstrate by reading from the same report from which the hon. member read. Whether or not he read the whole report, I do not know, but he quoted this afternoon from the first or second page, and what I am going to quote happens to be a little further on.


John Lambert Gibson: He
changed his mind, did he?


Angus MacInnis: No. As a matter of fact the brief is very good. He differentiated between immigration proper and the admission of refugees. Perhaps, for the benefit of my hon. friends across the way, I should just read his statement on the admission of refugees, which appears on page 208 of the report:
The admission of refugees is not really part of the immigration question. Immigration is an economic question. The admission of refugees, though it has, of course, economic aspects, is primarily a humanitarian question. Canada is under an obligation to humanity to admit her due share of refugees even if it costs her something. It may actually bring her important economic benefits. But even if it does not, she must do her part.
I think most hon. members would agree with that statement. Then Mr. Mosher was asked this question by Senator Roebuck:

Hon. Mr. Roebuck:	With regard to immigration, Mr. Mosher, does your brief suggest that we should have a government survey of a very extensive and thorough character of the resources that we have, and then carefully planned immigration, so balanced as not to bring in a large number of people one year and none the next, but a steady flow of well-selected immigrants, supervised, or at all events assisted, for a time after their arrival until they work themselves into our economy?
Mr. Mosher:	Exactly, senator, that is the
whole tenor of our brief. This idea of opening up the gates wide on the plea that we have lots of room and this greatly augmented population will help out the country is a mistake. Immigrants should be brought in only after a very careful survey and with all the related factors taken into consideration.
Does that indicate that he wants wholesale immigration of every kind of people who care to come here? It certainly does not.
Then, in answer to another question by Senator Horner, Mr. Mosher said:
I think, senator, I can agree with you very largely, but the question I would have to throw back would be this:	Do you want to go back
to the conditions which faced our farmers and agricultural interests in the '30's, when it was claimed by most farmers, at least in western Canada, that they were producing wheat at a loss? Do you want us to crowd the land so that the farmer will not get a fair price for the things he produces by reason of over production. It seems to me that not only for the protection of the workers but also for the protection of the farmers you have to be careful about bringing in huge numbers of people without any plan or consideration of the factors that have to be taken into account.
I do not think anything could be clearer than what Mr. Mosher and the Canadian Congress of Labour, for whom he spoke, want a reasoned immigration policy.


Thomas Reid: It was clear enough.


Angus MacInnis: Depending upon how the country can absorb those allowed* in.
I want just to touch upon one other matter. The hon. member for New Westminster spoke of the time he came to Canada, I believe it was in 1909. I do not know whether he came to Vancouver at that time.


Thomas Reid: Straight to Vancouver.


Angus MacInnis: I had come from my native province of Prince Edward Island only a year before that. I, too, can remember that all the opposition to oriental immigration at that time came from organized labour in British Columbia.


Thomas Reid: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: And the reason why all the opposition came from organized labour is a very simple one. Orientals-and at that time they were mostly Chinese-were taken in as cheap labour. They could live on a

Immigration Act
bowl of rice and, a few vegetables, while a white worker wanted beefsteak. If he did not get beefsteak, he would at least want liver, or something of that kind. Consequently he had to charge more for his labour when he sold it. So the farmer who got the Chinese labourer for fifty cents a day-


George Alexander Cruickshank: That's nonsense, and you know it is.
Mr. MaeINNIS: If I were as good a judge of nonsense as my hon. friend is, I would agree with him. But this does not happen to be nonsense.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It does, so far as the farmer is concerned.
Mr. MaeINNIS: It just happens to be the fact.
The farmers of British Columbia thought the Chinese were a godsend, a gift from heaven. But the situation began to change. The Chinese began to buy and to lease land, and then began to produce and to sell agricultural products for themselves. And because the Chinese could produce them cheaper, in the same way as he could sell his labour cheaper, he could undersell the white farmer. Then the white farmers came to the conclusion that the Chinese were a menace, and began to advocate their exclusion.
Then the Chinese began going into commercial work.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Conductors, or
something like that. Were any of them conductors? They wouldn't let them in.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I imagine the house will take what you say now with the same amount of confidence as it takes anything else you say.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Nobody else would let them in, either.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Then they went into the wholesale and retail trades: baking, cleaning, and all that sort of thing. And, lo and behold! 

the business man decided that the Chinese were a menace, too. I remember in 1916, it did not take long after my hon. friend got to British Columbia-


Thomas Reid: My stand has been consistent, all the time.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I remember a delegation of businessmen going to Victoria to meet the government of that day. It was a Liberal government, of which the present Judge Manson was attorney general.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The Liberals are always in power; you know that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not now.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They were then.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member who has the floor must not be interrupted.
Mr. MaeINNIS: The attorney general said, "It used to be that only labour objected to orientals. Now we find that labour does not object to them any more; it is the businessman and the farmers."


George Alexander Cruickshank: Nonsense.
Mr. MaeINNIS: The fact is that labour has learned a lot since 1909. Through organizing, the oriental and the white man have learned that, so far as they are concerned, the enemy is the same enemy, and that by organizing- and they are organized-they will no longer be a menace.


Mr. TUCKER:: Who is the enemy? Your leader is talking love and good will. What are you talking about?
Mr. MaeINNIS: There can be no good will between the fox who is skinned and the man who is skinning him.


Walter Adam Tucker: Who is the fox, and who is the man skinning him?
Mr. MaeINNIS: And as soon as that relationship is abolished, goodwill can be established.


George Alexander Cruickshank: How many men in the British Columbia electrical union are orientals-the one you belong to.
Mr. MaeINNIS: We will look into the statistics on that subject.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You would not let them into your union. Tell the rest of the story. That is the union you belong to. How many orientals are in the union you belong to?


William Ross Macdonald: Order.
Mr. MaeINNIS: As the Prime Minister said of another gentleman the other evening, I think a little bit of fresh air would do my hon. friend good.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It might, but I did not go to Japan to get my campaign funds.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I beg your pardon?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I did not go to Japan to get my campaign funds.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Who went to Japan?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I say I didn't.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Who did?


William Ross Macdonald: Order.
Immigration Act

Mr. MaeINNIS: I didn't either; so neither of us did. If you will tell me how much you got from the breweries in British Columbia, I will tell you where mine came from.


William Ross Macdonald: I must insist that if an hon. member wishes to ask a question he may ask it only with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor. And the hon. member wishing to ask the question must rise in his place.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry; I apologize. But may I ask the hon. member a question? How many members of the British Columbia electrical union are orientals?
Mr. MaeINNIS: I don't know.


George Alexander Cruickshank: No, you bet you don't know.
Mr. MaeINNIS: If I may proceed without being so rudely interrupted again, I shall conclude.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You won't say anything, anyway.
Mr. MaeINNIS: It would be best if the minister withdrew this bill until he has his immigration policy better organized, and can tell the house exactly what is to take the place of the Chinese Immigration Act being repealed. Until that is done, so far as I am concerned-and I believe I am speaking for this group as a whole-I will stand for equal rights for all citizens of Canada, regardless of race, colour or creed.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened: with a great deal of interest to the debate thus far. I have the impression that a somewhat similar thing has happened to the house this afternoon to what happened when we were discussing the N.R.M.A. in 1944, in that there was contributed to the debate a tremendous amount of heat but the light tended to be obscured:. I wonder if we cannot manage somehow to get our eye on the ball and follow it through during the rest of this debate.
The first question for us to ask is, what must be Canada's purpose in having an immigration policy? Is Canada aiming by her immigration policy to increase Canada's population, or is she aiming to bow to certain other considerations such as, for example, one or more of the following which I believe constitute a sort of summary of the arguments which have been made or implied this afternoon by various speakers.
First, to relieve congestion of population in certain densely populated areas such as China, Japan, India, Java, Belgium, Germany-dear

me, the list stretches out almost interminably when you start it! If Canada's object is to relieve density of population in overpopulated areas, then I fear if she undertakes the task she is attempting something far beyond her capacity.
Second, to relieve the distress of certain unfortunate individuals such as displaced people. Of course we all wish to relieve displaced people, but surely there is a limit to our responsibility in this regard. We ought to be able to find what that limit is and meet it squarely and honourably.
Third, to assume Canada's proportionate share of the international burdens which appear to rest on the shoulders of the victors in world war II. It is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker, if I may stop to make it, that the people who appear to have lost this war are the victors!
Fourth, to satisfy other nations that Canada dloes not intend to follow a dog-in-the-manger policy designed to exclude from her soil the land-hungry millions yearning to reach her shores. Is this in other words, a measure to allay the hard feelings of other nations against us? One would think so from hearing some of the talk.
Fifth, are we by this measure aiming to satisfy certain pressure groups working for certain ulterior objectives, regardless of whether those objectives will contribute to the greater prosperity, unity and happiness of Canada?
Or sixth, are we doing this to reward the people of nations that fought well on the same side that Canada did in world war II? Is that our object?
Or seventh, is it to discharge our obligations as a signatory to the united nations agreement?
I think every member of the1 house1 will readily concede that there is a measure of validity in each one of these reasons, that probably not one of them ought to be entirely out of our minds at any given time. But as one member of the house, I feel that our primary and cogent reason is number one, to increase Canada's population, to make her stronger,, more prosperous, more happy, more enduring. If we can all agree that this is the primary purpose, let us consider that to be the ball and keep our eye on it and follow it through the game.
What has the government already done toward opening the door for immigration?' May I read two passages which have already been read into the record once, but which, I fancy, if anyone out in the country should do me the honour of reading my remarks it would



IX, 1917

[Stage Direction]
Immigration Act
interest him to have them appear in the record in this context. The minister gave us a statement- as recorded at page 151 of Hansard of February 5. Answering the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), the minister said:
Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that only a short time ago I placed before the house the contents of an order in council which was passed on May 29 last and which opened and widened the doors for immigrants coming to this country? That order in council provided:
"(a) 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 his dependents.
Is there any discrimination in such an order which is binding upon the immigration authorities? The order further provides:
(b)	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.
(c)	An agriculturist having sufficient means to farm in Canada.
(d)	The fiancee of any adult male legally admitted to and resident in Canada who is in a position to receive, marry and care for his intended wife.
(e)	A person who, having entered Canada as a non-immigrant, enlisted in the Canadian armed forces and. having served in such forces, has been honourably discharged therefrom.
That was the first set of widenings, shall I say, of measures to expand Canada's immigration policy, opening the door, so to speak. Further on, on the same page, the minister said:
Only on Friday last, not in consequence of the hon. member's speech, an order in council was passed, widening the doors to other classes. It is P.C. 374. dated January 30, 1947, and I will quote from it as I think this will answer the hon. gentleman's criticism of the department so far as preferred and non-preferred classes are concerned. We are providing in this order in council that the following have been added to the admissible classes:
1.	The widowed daughter or sister (with or without unmarried children under 18 years of age) of a legal resident of Canada who is in a position to receive and care for such relatives.
2.	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.
3.	A farm labourer entering Canada to engage in assured farm employment.
4.	A person experienced in mining, lumbering or logging entering Canada to engage in assured employment in any one of such industries.
I thought. Mr. Speaker, as the minister finished reading those provisions, that he had surely opened the door. All hon. members
need to do is just to visualize all the possible combinations which might arise across Canada from these provisions, and then they will realize that Canada has indeed broadened her immigration policy substantially within the past year. These were serious orders in council to be passed without reference to parliament! And what was the need? I do not wish to criticize the minister or the government unduly, because they know things that the ordinary member does not know, but I consider it regrettable that these orders in council were passed without discussion by the house.
Patrick Harvey Ashby: Sneaking them around
parliament.


John Horne Blackmore: These are pretty serious matters. Does this bill concerning Chinese immigration now under discussion tonight mean that these order-in-council regulations apply to the Chinese? That is the first thing hon. members need to know. If these regulations do apply to the Chinese who are in the country, then I maintain that the situation deserves the most serious consideration of every hon. member. Does it apply to Germans, to Italians, to Japanese or to any other people who might seek admission to our confines? If it does, then that matter also requires careful thought.
As I see it, the main consideration for us to have in mind is primarily what sort of people does Canada want and what sort of people has Canada a right to expect. I believe it has been quite generally agreed by those who have discussed the matter tonight that Canada wants people who are assimilable, people with whom Canadians can marry with desirable results. I emphasize "desirable results".
There are certain races who are proud; when they marry with the proud white people who have made this country they have offspring who are despised by both sides, who are outcasts. I have seen this thing happen several times. I refrain from mentioning a race because I have no desire to offend anyone. I will give hon. members the information privately if they so desire. That is an exceedingly serious matter and must be borne in mind by every hon. member who shoulders the responsibility, as I know all desire to do, of the future of the country in' drafting or approving immigration policies.
In addition, we want people, as I understand it, who will intermingle with the people of Canada. That means we are not desirous of acquiring people who will get into groups by themselves and tend to establish little blocks of their own nationality in the country, building, probably, for the future serious
342	COMMONS
Immigration Act
disorders in the country. There are groups of that sort, Mr. Speaker; I have had contact with such people, people who will never come out, so far as I can see, and mingle freely with the members of this nation. They segregate themselves. All hon, members have to do is to consider what might happen in segregated areas if a substantial number of new blood of the same sort should be brought into this country to go into these areas and increase them in size and economic power. Therefore I say there are two important considerations respecting desirables. They are both exceedingly important when we are evaluating .people to come into Canada. They must assimilate with desirable results, and they must intermingle.
Tonight a good deal has been said by some speakers tending to imply that we white people consider ourselves superior to other people. I do not consider the white race superior to any other race. I believe that we are all brothers under the skin, but I should like to see us keep our places. I think people get along a good deal better with those who have the same colour of skin. That is a general rule which, I believe, applies pretty well everywhere. It must be borne in mind that the present Canadians, whose fathers came here, pioneered, fought and struggled to develop this country, could see their children and their grandchildren utterly dispossessed in the land their fathers struggled to gain. I have seen this process in action. I do not believe that the majority of Canadian people desire to see that sort of thing take place in Canada. It can happen unless we choose the right kind of people to come into this country; it is entirely without consideration of quality at all.
I have no feeling of superiority, as I said a moment ago, to any man who lives on the earth. We are all God's creatures; we are all struggling to find the right way to gain happiness in the world, but we shall do it better with those who think and do as we do.
I think the majority of the people of Canada want people of their own kind. Canada was explored, settled and developed, by two great races, two of the greatest races in the world, the French and the British people. Have these races no rights? Have, their fathers no rights to see their children well provided for in this land they strove to gain for them? Have their children no rights to be well born into an environment in which they can succeed and be happy?	.
We might sum the matter up in this simple question. Has Canada no right to remain British?


Mr. MICHAUD:: To remain Canadian.


John Horne Blackmore: That is very well put. I thank the hon. member. I say, has Canada no right to remain British Canadian?


Mr. LAURENDEAU:: Put "Canadian" on the record.


John Horne Blackmore: We have finally arrived at the word which pleases everybody. Has Canada no right to remain Canadian?


James Sinclair: I will settle for British.


John Horne Blackmore: Canadian is good enough for me.
It must be granted that Canada owes a duty to her fellow nations. No one denies that fact. We are all our brother's keeper, even as nations, just as as individuals we are. Canada has a responsibility to other nations of the British commonwealth, and she has a responsibility to other nations of the world. She must assume those responsibilities and discharge them. But surely Canada must not be expected to forfeit her birthright to discharge her responsibilities! Her hard-earned, dearly-bought victory should not ruin Canada; and there is grave danger that if the desires of certain people are met Canada will be ruined because she was victorious.
Can we Canadians discharge our responsibility without ruining ourselves? I believe we can.
We come now to these overcrowded nations, among which we will grant that China, India and several other nations constitute a few. There are two measures which up to the present time have been advocated by various hon. members, which indicate how we might be of assistance to a nation, say like China or India or Java or Germany. One of these is by taking in as many of their people as we can take, and that seems to be the object of a number of hon. members who have spoken in this debate. The other is by freely trading with these people.
I submit that there must be measures far deeper than these two, because these two are so exceedingly limited. Suppose we had completely unrestricted immigration into Canada. Plow many people does the ordinary hon. member believe Canada could safely accommodate? Not so very long ago one hon. member gave a welLreasoned speech in which he finally established pretty well to his own satisfaction that we could accommodate probably nineteen million people. I would be venturesome enough to suggest that we could accommodate fifty million; probably most hon. members would hardly wish to go farther than that.

Immigration Act
Fifty million people is a small number. Suppose for example, we desired to relieve the congestion in China's population. Bear in mind that China has over 400 million people. Suppose we admitted to this country ten million Chinese people? How far would that ten million go toward1 relieving the congestion in China? Why, it would not be a ripple on the lake! But what would it do for Canada? It would utterly ruin her.


James Sinclair: What would it do for British Columbia?


John Horne Blackmore: It would swamp her.
That is a serious matter; and when we bear in mind that China is only one of the congested areas whose population might seek admission to our shores, then we must realize that a great deal of the discussion we have heard tonight is quite beside the point.
May I now speak in respect of international trade? Let us grant that we gave to China all the trade it was possible to give her and that we tried to distribute our trade without discrimination among all the nations. What conceivable substantial advantage would it give these people? It would help them a little, but it would not solve their problems, particularly if we engaged in the kind of trade that is common today, namely, competitive trade.
It would not be in order to say much about the matter of distribution of goods, but I suggest that there might be another attitude toward the distribution of goods. As a result of the adoption of this new attitude we might do much that would help the Chinese a great deal more than to bring them to Canada, where they and their descendants might be very unhappy as the years went by.
I suggest, while on that subject, that we should consider as members of this house an international mutual-aid scheme under which the nations could deliver the surplus of goods beyond their own needs to a pool which would be available to the nations that have not. I suggest that they would finance that pool.-and here is the important point- not with money raised by taxation or borrowing, but by the use of the national credit. Here is a chance for hon. members to show just how desirous they are of finding a solution and how much there is in all this wishful thinking that we have heard expressed.
I submit that this is a suggestion not yet canvassed, whereas every other suggestion made during the debate and during this session has been tried and has proved an utter failure. I merely throw that out in passing. If we could with our national credit, finance a mutual-aid scheme and persuade other nations
to do likewise we might help the deficient nations without bringing their people to our shores and disrupting our economies and destroying our national life.
Let us turn for a moment to the question of racial discrimination, about which there has been so much talk, and concerning which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) rose to such heights of oratory. Let us give a moment's thought to what racial discrimination is. I ask hon. members whether in what I have advocated or suggested I have advocated racial discrimination. I think not. Let me give a simple illustration. Suppose one of my neighbours fell upon evil days and got into sore need and I proposed to help him. There are two ways in which I could help him. I could invite him and his family to come and live under my roof with me and my family, or I could arrange to support him while he was building a home on his lot, and I could contribute goods and services to his support.
The second course illustrates the one I propose as the national plan which we ought to consider. No hon. member would seriously contemplate asking any individual but the most intimate friend to come and live in his own house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not even your mother-in-law.


John Horne Blackmore: I thank the hon, member for giving emphasis to what I say. In contemplating the bringing of large numbers of these unfortunate people to our shores, we are contemplating just such a proposal. But is it not possible for us to enable them to set themselves up in their own land where they would be happy in their own natural environment, while we contributed to their support with goods and services from our surplus? I believe that would be possible. If I proposed to treat my neighbour as I have suggested, by helping him to build a home of his own on his own lot, supplying him with food, clothing and shelter in keeping with my resources, could anyone say that I was discriminating against him? Could anyone say, because I did not invite him into my own house, that I was discriminating against him? Surely discrimination means something different from what some hon. members appear to seek to convey!
Since the matter of the united nations charter has been mentioned two or three times by members, I should like to read into the record clause 3 of article I of that charter, which I am afraid some people are inclined to regard as obligating Canada to admit any number of people to her shores:
Immigration Act

To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion-
Now let me apply the little crude illustration that I gave a moment ago. Suppose I assisted my neighbour by helping him to establish himself, contributing to his support with food, clothing and shelter surplus to me, would that discriminate against him economically or socially or racially? Would I be neglecting to respect his human rights and fundamental freedoms? Certainly not! As a matter of fact, I would be adding to his dignity, his self-respect and his happiness, beyond any question. The social credit concept is illustrated and suggested by the little illustration I have given.
Some people have the idea that we Social Creditors do not favour international cooperation. Nothing is farther from the truth. But we do object to the types of technique that have been proposed as means whereby international cooperation is to be achieved. We maintain that they would be disastrous in their application. What does racial discrimination mean? We might spend a moment on that since it has been discussed. What does "without distinction as to race" and so on mean? I maintain, if I may submit this in all humility for hon. members to consider, that the whole charter of the united nations has been worded in a dangerously vague and general way, so that almost any expression in the charter is susceptible of several interpretations which can be made by' interested parties who may desire to accomplish their own private ends. I suggest, therefore, to hon. members that they be not too much impressed by' this argument that we are bound under the united nations charter. If we are bound under it, then I suggest that it is high time the government took measures to loosen our ties with it or to redefine our freedoms and privileges and redefine the terms and the meaning of the charter, as was well suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
There are too many complexities in the united nations charter, and that constitutes another reason why I believe we ought to consider, probably very soon, having the whole matter redefined. What does international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic character mean? Does it mean international trade? Must we buy and sell as much per capita from and to China as we do in the case of the United States? And if, by any chance, it is found that we do not buy as much from China as from the United States, are we discriminating against the
[Mr. Blackmore.l
Chinese and doing so by reason of race? W ould any hon. member answer that in the affirmative? Well, then, why should we be accused of racial discrimination if we do not accept from China as many of her population as we might be willing to accept from the United States or Great Britain? This is a matter which I think probably requires a little attention. Suppose clause 3 of article I, which I read a few moments ago, is a clause, by' reason of agreeing to which, Canada became obligated to accept Chinese immigrants as envisaged by this bill before the house. "What expression in that clause requires this? Is it the word "social"? May I read the clause once more so that members can give it special attention:
To achieve international cooperation in solving inter-national problems of an economic-*
That does not apply to immigration, does it?
-social

That does not apply to immigration, does it?
-cultural-
Does that apply to immigration?
-or humanitarian character,-
Does that apply to immigration? If so, why was it not specifically so stated?
and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights-
Does that require immigration?
[DOT]-and for fundamental freedoms-
Does that require immigration?
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
I confess that I find it difficult to feel that any one of those statements binds Canada to accept Chinese immigration or immigration from any' other source whatsoever unless we choose to have those people in this country.


John Lambert Gibson: I think you are right.


John Horne Blackmore: If I am not right, we must take steps to see that I am right, and we must take steps before it is too late; because many of these things have a way of congealing or hardening after a while, and then they grow more difficult to deal with.
What should we have to do to fulfil this commitment? Suppose this statement regarding the achieving of international cooperation in solving of international problems of a social nature should mean immigration; let us see where it would get us. Are we to admit as many Chinese in proportion to the Chinese population as we admit of French in proportion to France's population? Let us consider

Immigration Act
that for a moment.. If we are not going to discriminate against the Chinese at all, and if we accept from France 100,000 people- which I believe everyone in this house would be perfectly happy to do in any given year- then, apparently, from the interpretation which some hon. members are putting on- this whole situation, we should have to accept eight times as many from China as we accepted from France, because there are eight times as many people in China as there are in France. That would mean that we should have to bring in 800,000 Chinese in order to get
100.000	French, if we are to avoid discrimination. Is that not the only interpretation which could logically be placed upon it?


John Lambert Gibson: That is right.


John Horne Blackmore: Then, where does that put us? Not in a very plausible position, I should say.


John Lambert Gibson: One Englishman for eight Chinamen.


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes; or one Englishman for eight Chinamen, because there are 46 million or 47 million people in Britain and over 400 million people in China. The whole thing works out to an absurdity, does it not? When we begin to talk about discrimination in realistic terms, that is the sort of complexity we find ourselves involved in. Apply that rule to India with her 350 million people, or to Java with her 46 million people and look at the commitment with respect to immigration which Canada would have to take on in order to bring in 100.000 Frenchmen from France or 100.000 British from Britain.


John Lambert Gibson: What about
100.000	Scotsmen? What would they take?


Solon Earl Low: Four will be enough.


John Horne Blackmore: Without prolonging the discussion any further, Mr. Speaker, I think we might safely dismiss every consideration before us except that of obtaining for Canada additional population of the kind we desire in this country.
I think it would be well that I do not continue this discussion any further just now. I do not wish to burden hon. members of the house. I will just close by making a brief statement as to the attitude Social Creditors are taking on this bill; and let it be fully understood once more that Social Crediters are as eager as any members in this house to cooperate with nations. They realize that peace is indivisible in the world. They realize that we cannot have a safe world while there
are people in it who are hungry. They have contended this time and again in this house. The whole question with us is one as to the techniques to be employed in order to attain the objective desired. I have suggested the technique that Social Crediters would adopt and I will say no more about it.
Let me now state my attitude with respect to this bill. I believe that the minister would be well advised to withdraw this bill and redraft it so as to safeguard the Canadian people and their children of tomorrow. I would suggest that the minister issue, at as early a date as is convenient for him, a clear and explicit statement of the government's immigration policy so that we may be able to know what this bill means when considered against the background of the government's policy.
Mr. PATRICK H. ASHBY (Edmonton East):	Mr. Speaker, I support the hon.
member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), and I strongly object to any immigration into Canada except that which is absolutely necessary; because in a few short years we are going to see in this country a demand for every farm that we can provide for some of the most, if not the most, lojml citizens that Canada has ever known or will ever know, for the baby bonus being paid to our fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec will cause a flood of these most loyal citizens who will, I hope, inhabit Canada and thus preserve Canada as a great country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, with some of the profound observations which have been made by the last speaker I feel that I am not in a position to compete. Therefore, with the consent of the house I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Wednesday, February 12, 1947