1950-04-21

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Hallon) presented the third report of the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. Bradette (Cochrane) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Byrne be substituted for that of Mr. Laing on the standing committee on banking and commerce.
That the name of Mr. Goode be substituted for that of Mr. Laing on the standing committee on external affairs.
That the name of Mr. Smith (Calgary West) be substituted for that of Mr. Black (Cumberland); that the name of Mr. Pearkes be substituted for that of Mr. Murphy; that the name of Mr. Higgins be substituted for that of Mr. Hatfield, and that the name of Mr. Harkness be substituted for that of Mr. McLure, on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table a report issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce entitled, "Public and Private Investment in Canada, Outlook 1950", as well as a report issued by the same department entitled, "Supply of Building Materials in Canada, Outlook 1950".



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: On April 17 the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked a question as to when the Bankruptcy Act, 1949, would be proclaimed. At that time I said the matter was under consideration with the new superintendent of bankruptcy, and that an announcement would be made in due course. I should like to make that announcement now.
The Bankruptcy Act, 1949, received royal assent on December 10, 1949. Since that time the bankruptcy branch of the Department of Justice has been engaged in the preparation of a draft of general rules to be made by the governor in council under the act. This draft consists of a large number of rules, tariff items and forms. All the official receivers and registrars in bankruptcy were asked in December, 1949, for their comments and suggestions in connection with this draft, and replies are still being received from them. On April 13 last copies of this draft were sent to certain bankruptcy court judges and officials who were requested to let the superintendent of bankruptcy have their comments before May 1 next.
Various interested parties and organizations have made representations concerning these rules, which have raised questions of policy which will have to be settled before the final form of the rules is decided upon. When the general rules have been settled and have been passed by the governor in council, we propose to have them printed and distributed to all the trustees and to officials of the bankruptcy courts in sufficient time for these officials to familiarize themselves with the act and the rules before the act is proclaimed.
At the present time we consider that the earliest date on which it would be appropriate to proclaim the Bankruptcy Act, 1949, would be July 1, 1950.



STEAMSHIP INSPECTION

[Stage Direction]
REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT KELLOCK REPORT ON "noronic" DISASTER
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: On December 8 last, Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the house that the recommendations of the commissioner in the investigation

Steamship Inspection
of the Noronic disaster would be incorporated in the regulations of the steamship inspection service of the Department of Transport. On my instructions, departmental officers immediately applied themselves to this task, and late in December proposed regulations incorporating the recommendations of the commissioner were circulated to all ship owners to whom the new regulations would apply. Since the beginning of the year the steamship inspection board has had occasion to meet with representatives of the industry, not only in Ottawa but also on the Pacific coast.
It is the right of the public to demand reasonable protection when travelling by ship, and after most serious consideration, and on the advice of the board of steamship inspection and other officers of my department, it was decided to use the international convention for the safety of life at sea as a guide in the preparation of regulations to implement the Kellock report.
The convention to which I refer was held in London in 1948. It was composed of technical experts of almost all the maritime nations of the world, and I am sure no recognized authority would assert that the provisions of this convention do not afford the protection to which the public is entitled.
The recommendations made by the commissioner are to be implemented as far as conditions will permit. On existing ships the period of time between now and the placing of these ships in commission is too short to allow complete compliance with all the regulations; however, the principal requirements will be implemented and as 'many of the others as time will permit. No passenger ship will be allowed to enter into service without complying with the new regulations to the extent which is practicable.
Several ship owners have already taken steps to implement many of the commissioner's recommendations. One firm on the Pacific coast has had fire-resisting bulkheads and several other additional items of equipment fitted in one of its ships, and arrangements are being made for similar changes on another of their vessels. An eastern company operating on the St. Lawrence river and great lakes has arranged, before placing four of its ships in commission this summer, to have fire-resisting bulkheads, a partial sprinkling system, public address system, fire detection system, fire alarm system and manually supervised patrol system fitted throughout each of its four ships.
In the application of the regulations, care will be taken to avoid the necessity of curtailment of services. Decisions in these matters

will, consistent with safety, be made by the board of steamship inspection and not by any individual steamship inspector.
In all forms of passenger transportation, be it by air, rail, or water, there is always, of course, an element of hazard, and conditions are and will continue to be frequently reviewed in order to limit these hazards as much as possible. I am satisfied that passengers on board Canadian ships will be receiving a much greater amount of protection under the new regulations. These have been approved by order in council P.C, 1896, of April 12, 1950, copy of which I now table.


Mr. Green:: Will there not be an opportunity for the members of the house to give consideration to these regulations? As the minister will recall, I suggested that some weeks ago. As yet we have had no chance to see these regulations. It was my understanding that we would be given an opportunity to review them. There is also involved the question of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Are there to be any amendments at this session? Can the minister answer these two questions?


Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the first question, may I say there will be ample opportunity, as I indicated heretofore, for discussion of the steamship regulations.


Howard Charles Green: When? On what occasion?


Lionel Chevrier: On the estimates of the Department of Transport. With reference to the second subject, may I say that I think there is included in the speech from the throne an assurance that the Canada Shipping Act will be amended. The bill implementing that undertaking is in the process of being prepared, and I hope that, in the not too distant future, it will be on the order paper.


Mr. Fulford:: Will new regulations be introduced at this session pertaining to small craft driven by gasoline or diesel motive power? I refer to craft under sixty-five feet in length.


Lionel Chevrier: The steamship regulations which I have just tabled do not apply to the form of transport mentioned by my hon. friend, but the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act will cover the point that he has in mind.


Mr. Fraser:: May I ask the minister if copies of the amendments that he has just tabled will be available for the committee on railways and shipping? We should have these,
I believe, because we are interested.


Lionel Chevrier: They have been tabled; they have been published in the Canada Gazette, and they can be obtained by anyone in the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is all right, then. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT STORES



AMENDMENT OF ACT WITH RESPECT TO OUTSTANDING ADVANCES, OBSOLETE STORES, ETC.

Lionel Chevrier: for leave to introduce Bill No. 135, to amend the Department of Transport Stores Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to increase the value of stores in the Department of Transport from $1 million to $5 million. Because of the increase in the price of stores, the expansion of the department by the inclusion of the air services, and the entry into confederation of Newfoundland, the present act has become obsolete. It has therefore been felt necessary to amend it.
It is also the intention to add one or two sections which will change the accounting system, and which will provide for the disposal of obsolescent stores.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TARIFFS AND TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the government of Canada opposed Japan's entry into the general agreement on tariffs and trade? If it has, will the minister explain the reasons to the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not in a position to answer that question at the moment, but I shall make inquiries and answer it later.



POULTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Mott (New Westminster):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the report of the outbreak of a dread disease, known as Newcastle disease, among poultry flocks in British Columbia, would the minister care to make a statement?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question, and I have a short prepared statement with regard to the matter.
In regard to Newcastle disease in poultry, there has been an outbreak of Newcastle disease in a number of poultry flocks in the Fraser valley area of British Columbia. The first case was discovered and dealt with on February 26, 1950. Up to April 19 the disease has been reported and dealt with in seventeen additional flocks. The total number of birds involved to date is approximately 45,000. This is out of an estimated population of 3 million birds in British Columbia.
Since Newcastle disease in poultry is highly infectious and the mortality rate is heavy, it is extremely important that action be taken to prevent its establishment and spread throughout the poultry flocks of Canada. For some years past there have been occasional outbreaks in different provinces, and all have been dealt with in the same way, namely, by quarantine, slaughter, disinfection of premises, and compensation to the owners for the birds slaughtered. This method has kept the disease from gaining a foothold in Canada and has protected the poultry industry generally against heavy losses which almost certainly would have followed the uncontrolled spread of the disease.
With regard to the British Columbia outbreak, the indications are that new cases are diminishing in number and importance. Dr. Kenneth Wells, of the headquarters staff of the health of animals division, has flown to Vancouver to make an on-the-spot check of the situation and to keep us fully informed. He will also confer with provincial authorities as to what is being done, and what, if any, additional action might be taken.
It has been suggested by several people that we should abandon our present slaughter and compensation policy and instead authorize the importation and use of vaccine. So far departmental officials believe that a vaccination policy would be unwise, even though the efficacy of vaccine were proven, about which there is some doubt. It is pointed out that once the present policy of rigid control is abandoned, all poultry flock owners might be faced with the alternative of vaccination or the acceptance of heavy losses from the disease itself. While there is every hope of keeping complete control of the situation by the present methods, it seems highly inadvisable to subject the entire industry to the risk and expense which would

Inquiries of the Ministry be involved in the substitution of a vaccination policy. The departmental officers will continue to watch the situation closely and report frequently on developments.


Mr. Pearkes:: May I ask a supplementary question? Have any experiments been carried out within the last year with the idea of finding a cure for this dread disease, rather than merely slaughtering the birds? No doubt the minister will remember that a year ago I sent in a report from a constituent of mine who claimed to have developed a cure for it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the only method of treatment, other than that which is being followed, is the importation and distribution of vaccine, which I understand has been utilized in the United States and elsewhere fairly successfully under certain conditions. The effect of this statement is that with this outbreak on our hands at the moment, it is better for everyone concerned that we proceed with the methods we have been following, namely, to destroy the birds that are affected and get the disease stamped out, and from there on to consider the possibility of applying the other method which has been experimented with, but which they say in this statement has not been absolutely proved as a method of stamping out the disease.
Mr Graydon: What is the nature of the disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a virus that enters the chicken in some way or other and causes its death. It is a disease which spreads very rapidly.



SIR BASIL BROOKE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wilbert Ross Thatcher: wished to direct a question to the Irish half of the Prime Minister, but since he is not here I shall ask it of the Acting Prime Minister. Have any official plans been made by the Canadian government to receive the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland?


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: No, never.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have reason to believe that plans have been made, but I do not know what they are. I shall be glad to make inquiries.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Who wants him?


Stanley Howard Knowles: A good Irish answer.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Knapman Fraser: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In a return which was tabled in my name this week, 102b, and a supplementary return, all the departments of the government are not covered. Will the minister kindly see that the return is completed?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: will endeavour to get the information requested, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
48. Departmental administration, $90,620.
Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief review of the work of the department, but before doing so I should like to thank all those hon. members who in the past three or four months have been kind enough to express to me personally and in the house their good wishes on my appointment to this office. I hope they will continue to show their good will by severely criticizing any shortcomings there may be in the estimates this afternoon.
In view of the announcement on many occasions that amendments to the Indian Act will be introduced at this session, I do not propose to deal at great length with the Indian affairs branch of the department. I am prepared, however, to give some figures with respect to education and other matters mentioned in the discussion of the estimates last fall, if it is so desired. I should like, though, to say something in particular about the immigration and citizenship branches.
Although the coming into being of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration dates only from January of this year, its main branches have roots in early Canadian history. There is continuity of Indian affairs administration for about two hundred years. Citizenship registration-or naturalization as it was formerly known-and immigration go back to confederation.
The organization of the new department has not resulted in any substantial increase in personnel. A departmental administration branch became necessary and has been partly established. A construction unit had to be added to the Indian affairs branch, to take over Indian affairs engineering and construction works. Personnel for both units has

been secured from the former departments of mines and resources and reconstruction and supply.
The Prime Minister stated in the house on November 26 last:
Having citizenship, immigration and Indian affairs in the one department would indicate that the purpose of the activities of that department was to make Canadian citizens of those who were horn here of the original inhabitants of the territory, or those who migrated to this country.
The aim of the immigration branch of the department is to promote an increase in the population of Canada of carefully selected, readily assimilable immigrants within the absorptive capacity of the country. The aim of the citizenship branch is to bring about full understanding and acceptance by such persons and by the Indian population as well of the benefits and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. It is not claimed that the objective is new-simply that it is being accentuated and the work co-ordinated.
There have been several significant migrations to Canada: the initial French settlement; the movement of British Empire Loyalists; migration from the British isles in the 1830's, and the general settlement of the west fifty years ago.
Shortly before the turn of the century the Canadian government instituted a vigorous immigration policy, with free or low-cost homesteads being held out as an inducement to land settlers. During the years 1901-1915 Canada received 2,920,625 immigrants- approximately 40 per cent from the British isles and over 30 per cent from the United States.
World war I brought to an end the heavy land settlement era, and immigration remained at a comparatively low ebb from then until 1927, when there was an upswing which lasted until 1930. Solicitation of immigration from any country was discontinued at this time, and the admissible classes narrowed. There was no substantial increase up to 1939, when the second world war intervened.
During the calendar year period 1945-49, 379,199 persons were admitted to Canada, of whom 173,090 came from the British isles and 42,428 from the United States.
Perhaps the refugee movement calls for special mention. Canada was one of the first countries to assist the United Nations in the resettlement of the millions of persons displaced from their native countries as a result of world war II. This movement has been co-ordinated by the immigration branch with the full co-operation of the departments of labour and national health and welfare. To date. 98,000 refugees have been admitted to
21,	1950	1763
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Canada-55,000 as close relatives and nearly
42,000	under group movements, the balance being made up of orphans and unattached persons.
Applications for admission of groups of skilled and unskilled workers have been made by industries and screened by an interdepartmental committee consisting of representatives of the immigration branch and the departments of labour, external affairs and national health and welfare. Under the group movement plan, approval has been given to the admission of refugees for such employment as miners, railway workers, hydro construction workers, domestics, clothing industry workers, et cetera.
The selection, processing, transportation and reception in Canada of refugees are carried out in co-operation with the international refugee organization and the Canadian Christian council for resettlement of refugees and the departments mentioned.
The international refugee organization estimates that on June 30 next there will be approximately 405,600 coming within its mandate in camps in Europe. Of these, 216,000 are considered to be suitable for resettlement somewhere. At the present time Canada is accepting domestics and farm workers from these camps. IRO care of refugees was to have ceased on June 30, but is being continued until March 31, 1951.
Getting back to the general question, in May, 1947, Mr. King, as prime minister, outlined to the house government policy in the matter of immigration. He said:
The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation and vigorous administration to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can advantageously be absorbed in the national economy.
Mr. King also indicated that it was not proposed to alter the immigration regulations in a manner that might bring about any fundamental change in the character of the population.
The basic races of Canada are French and Anglo-Saxon. W-ith respect to immigration from France, it is regrettable that only 3,404 immigrants came to Canada from that country since the end of the war. France has not encouraged emigration for some time, and having suffered great losses in manpower in two wars within a generation, she is seeking immigration to augment her own manpower requirements. Monetary restrictions and the traditional attitude of the French towards emigration also contribute to the small movement to this country.


Howard Charles Green: Is that a government agency?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.
The foundation arranges transportation, which is paid for by the emigrant. In Canada the movement is handled by a nomination method under which applications are made for Netherlands farmers by Canadian farmers. Settlement arrangements are investigated by the settlement service of the immigration branch.
The movement of these Netherlands agriculturists is working out very satisfactorily. About 3,000 came during 1947, 7,000 during 1948, 7,000 during 1949, and about 1,500 to date in 1950.
With few exceptions the encouragement of immigration to Canada has public support. I think we all agree that this country has benefited from past immigration. I think we all agree that this country can support a much larger population. The extent of our export trade, the tremendous production of foodstuffs, and our great natural resources, all lead to this conclusion.
Immigration policy requires the support of all Canadians, and generally speaking that support has been given. There has always been a view, though it is not widely held in Canada, that immigration may add to unemployment. There is the opposite view that immigration aids employment, and at one time or another I suppose an argument can be made out for each side. However, the statistics of unemployment during the past winter and the known destination of the immigrants would seem to indicate that employment has been aided by immigration. For example, in the province of Ontario, which received the largest number of immigrants, 183,000, out of a total of 379,000, employment was highest this winter with respect to both the total population and the total working force. Nevertheless I do not propose to argue this point, as the policy which has already been stated recognizes that from time to time the numbers to be admitted to this country would vary, having in mind conditions here.
In many instances immigrants have brought about increased opportunities for employment by Canadians through the introduction of new skills and techniques.
A good example is the so-called "refugee industries". A recent memorandum of the dominion bureau of statistics shows that 72 industries established by immigrants between 1939 and 1947 employed at the end of that year 6,127 workers to whom they paid, in that single year, $11,228,293 in salaries and wages. The gross value of the products of these industries for 1947 was $50,720,126. The

aggregate figure of salaries and wages paid by "refugee industries'' between 1939 and 1947 is $62,797,422, and the global gross value of their products, $264,249,063.
To this most impressive contribution to the national economy, which has resulted directly from immigration, must be added the very large amount of capital brought to Canada by immigrants. Between September 1, 1945, and December 31, 1949, immigrants brought or transferred to Canada funds estimated by the Bank of Canada at $168 million. The value of what is known as settlers' effects, the personal belongings of immigrants, brought into the country during the same period amounted to $48 million.
It will be seen that some of the factors involved in immigration are the opportunities for the immigrant in Canada for land settlement or employment and the obtaining of the most desirable immigrants from abroad who can settle on the land or take the available employment. There are difficulties of exchange at the moment, and whether this can be overcome or not I am not prepared to say at this time; but the house can be assured that we shall adhere to the policy previously enunciated, having in mind the high quality of our citizens and the desirability of maintaining that high standard. We need both capital and people to aid in the development of our resources, and we believe that we are pursuing the best course to further this policy.
My remarks have related solely to immigration, but the reception of visitors to Canada represents a substantial portion of the duties of the immigration branch. Approximately 40 million people were checked into Canada during 1949, including the 95,000 immigrants. In order to facilitate the entry of tourists, other visitors, returning Canadians and commuters, two hundred and eighty ports of entry are operated by this department and require a staff, including part-time employees, of 1,728.
It will, therefore, be seen that the immigration branch has to maintain personnel and offices capable of receiving into Canada every year approximately 40 million people, of which only roughly one in 400 is an immigrant seeking permanent landing. Of the remainder, 24 million are tourists, and we of course are happy to have these people come to see our country and its opportunities, as no doubt we do obtain not only permanent business contacts but probably some permanent settlers out of this number. The remainder of the 40 million are Canadians who go abroad on business or as visitors, and for whom we have to provide the facilities of re-entry, or are commuters living in Canada
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration and working in the United States. It is part of our economy that these people should be free to work at American border points and go and come daily earning their livelihood in this manner; but it should be remembered that, in order to permit this to be done, quite substantial immigration facilities have to be provided at a considerable cost.
The Canadian Citizenship Act became effective on January 1, 1947, and the administration of this act is the responsibility of the Canadian citizenship registration branch. This is a continuation of the work handled by the old naturalization branch of the Department of the Secretary of State.
There was a great increase in the work during 1947 and 1948, and the volume of applications for citizenship remained at the higher level. I should like to have consent to place on Hansard a statement of the certificates granted and revoked since the act came in force.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: The statement
follows:
Certificates of citizenship granted during the years
1947-49:
To Canadian
citizens To others Total
1947	
13,849	6,587	20,4361948	
11,147	13,411	24,5581949	
9,394	11,784	21,178Totals	
34,390	31,782	66,172
Revocations and Cancellations
1947	
170	4231948	
162	2061949	
115	278
During the first three years' administration of the act, anomalies came to light. Also there have been changes in the national status of some member countries of the commonwealth. For these reasons amendments are necessary, and I hope to introduce these amendments later in the session.
The Canadian citizenship branch is a division separate from the Canadian citizenship registration branch, and is designed to assist immigrants and others who are applicants for citizenship in receiving instructions in the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship.
We believe that every applicant for citizenship should share a deep conviction of the worth of the individual and the principles of democracy as we know them; we believe that there should be a greater consciousness amongst our people of the achievements of the Canadian nation, and that we should do our utmost to promote Canadian unity so that all of our people may embrace one steadfast purpose-to be good Canadian citizens.
1766	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
We believe that our Canadian system is based on service to all the persons who comprise the state, and that we desire only the welfare of our people. There is no such thing as the welfare of the state as such, but only the collective welfare of all the families and individuals within our borders. Certain other countries do not believe in this system and are trying to destroy it in order to substitute one entirely different, where the individual is but one of many who are intended for service to the state. These principles are false, and we must counteract them.
To achieve these objectives, the Canadian citizenship branch is co-operating closely with the departments of education and national, provincial and local voluntary organizations, in the development of a citizenship program designed to assist in the adjustment of newcomers to the Canadian way of life, to stimulate the practice of our democratic principles, and to encourage in all citizens the will to accept their responsibilities as such.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Chairman, may I take the opportunity which this occasion offers to congratulate the minister on his appointment to the portfolio of citizenship and immigration.
All of us will have been impressed by the minister's concluding remarks respecting the work of the Canadian citizenship branch and the instructions that are given to those who are about to achieve citizenship, with a view -using the minister's words-to assuring a greater consciousness of the achievements of Canada in the past and also of the meaning of citizenship. With that aim and general purpose there will be unanimous agreement everywhere in the house.
The minister has mentioned the number of immigrants who have come to Canada in the last four years, and, as I remember the figure he gave, it was only some 20,000 under the
400,000	mark. Some came from other parts of the British commonwealth and others from the United States. Many came from continental Europe. A few years before the war there were many who felt that the migration to Canada of peoples from Europe might be detrimental to the building of a great Canadian citizenship, but if ever a viewpoint was dispelled the events between 1939 and 1945 gave an answer for all time. Those living in the prairie provinces are familiar with the large number of immigrants who came there during the period referred to by the minister, from 1900 until 1930, and saw something of the development that took place in western Canada in consequence of a dynamic immigration policy.


I like to mention the situation in my own province, and I like to think of the groups of people who came there from continental Europe. Many of them had been here only a few years at the time of the first great war, but large numbers enlisted. In the second great war I remember Major General La-Fleche referring on one occasion to the number of battalions of people of German, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Scandinavian and other origins who_ enlisted for overseas service in the Canadian army, a record noble and enduring. To read of those in my own constituency who won decorations in the last war, people with surnames indicating origins other than Anglo-Saxon or French, is to have presented an example of what our citizenship means and makes one realize that surname is not necessarily synonymous with citizenship.
I speak on this subject as one of mixed origin whose people came to this country 140 years ago, on my father's side to the province of Ontario and on my mother's side to the Selkirk settlement in 1812. From .the earliest days I advocated doing away with hyphenated citizenship in this country, whereby every ten years Canadians were required by the census regulations to declare their paternal origin, a requirement that was singularly annoying to those with non-Anglo-Saxon names who were thus denied the opportunity and privilege of being Canadians. Indeed our regulations were such that if the Duke of Windsor, an Englishman from the United Kingdom, had taken up residence in Alberta, every ten years he would have had to register by his German paternal origin. The continuance of such a practice would never permit the building of a strong Canadian consciousness.
When I first came to the house in 1940, and from then on, I pressed over and over again for the removal of regulations that denied to people the kind of citizenship we want in Canada. The minister speaks of Canadian unity. In my opinion nothing did more to give us a consciousness of our Canadian citizenship than the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1946. I have a certain pride in connection therewith. On the 11th of August, 1944, I advocated once more the removal of this requirement that was so detrimental to the building of Canadian citizenship, namely, the declaration of paternal origin every ten years. I recall that the then prime minister, Mr. King, stated that when the war was over he would join with me, and, as he said, with other hon. members of the same opinion, to achieve the kind of citizenship that all of us want to see developed in Canada. There is no question of denying

love of one's ancestry, but. a Canadian citizenship will never be built on the basis of looking back to the country of origin.
The Canadian Citizenship Act came into effect in 1946. My hon. friend says that anomalies have arisen since that time, and that they are to be removed, so far as may be practicable and possible, in the amendments that are to be introduced. I have one suggestion to make. It has to do with those who have come to this country from continental Europe. They came here because of our citizenship and the freedom that it implies. It is true that some who come to Canada may live here for ten, fifteen or twenty years without taking out citizenship, while reaping the advantages thereof, but the great majority of those who have come here from continental Europe since the war, realizing what this citizenship means, want to become citizens as soon as possible. They have to wait five years. Many of these displaced persons are stateless. For the first five years they are in Canada, they remain, as it were, set apart within our country. They ask for some recognition of their desire for citizenship.
I suggest to the minister that we give those people an opportunity to show their desire for this citizenship and all it means, by doing what is done in the United States-allow them to secure a certificate upon making a declaration of intention to take out citizenship at the end of two years. Such a certificate would be an indication of the newcomer's wish to be a Canadian citizen as soon as possible. It would be a token of his appreciation of what our system means, and what Canadian citizenship implies. It would be a popular move in Canada. Many hundreds and thousands would take advantage of it. It would not add to the cost of government. After all, in the scale of citizenship and its preservation, dollars do not weigh very heavily against the greater benefits that citizenship conveys. Give these people that opportunity. It would do a great deal to meet the attempt among non-English-speaking communities to undermine our country by the nefarious work of communism. It would set apart the holders of such certificates as prospective Canadians who were turning their back on communism and all for which it stands.
Two years ago the then secretary of state told us that there were 78 foreign language newspapers in Canada, of which no fewer than nineteen were preaching communism. I do not know what the figures are today, but that was the indictment of the then secretary of state, now Mr. Justice Gibson. Give those who want to be Canadians the opportunity
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of declaring their intention at the earliest possible date, and give them evidence of our appreciation of the fact. Such a move would enable these people to show that when they came here they meant to be the kind of citizens that the minister knows the vast majority desire to be. In the days of war many of them served as Canadians and without a hyphenated Canadianism. They showed where they stood. Those who did not have the opportunity of serving would be given an opportunity to say they had turned their backs on communism and its activities. They could show that they wanted to join those who preceded them from continental Europe, by indicating their intention of taking upon themselves the responsibilities as well as the traditions of Canadian citizenship.
The _ minister says: Let us build in the Canadian people, and in our new citizens particularly, a consciousness of citizenship. Mr. Chairman, let us build it in our native-born citizens as well. Let us give them knowledge of what this citizenship means. The minister gave a cursory outline of Canada's immigration when he spoke of the first citizens who came here from France, and of the United Empire Loyalists. There were the German immigrants who came to Nova Scotia in the 1750's; the United Empire Loyalists who came to Canada in the 1780's and 1790's; the Selkirk settlement of 1812 and we know what that settlement has meant to Canada in the preservation of the western plains for the British crown. How many of our native-born Canadian citizens know what their citizenship means?
In the United States they got away from hyphenated considerations. One never thinks of United States citizens according to their racial origin. One never thought of Roosevelt as a Dutch-American; one never thinly of Stassen as a Norwegian-German-American; one never thinks of Eisenhower as a German-American. While retaining their paternal love of their country of origin, a common Americanism was achieved. That is what we are trying to do in Canada.
Three years ago the people of the United States did something that did more to encourage the exercise of the franchise and appreciation of citizenship than service in war. Through the instrumentality of businessmen, representatives of chambers of commerce, service clubs, and other organizations, $1,300,000 was collected and the freedom train was mobilized. It carried all the documents of the past, commencing with Magna Carta, the United States bill of rights-the ten amendments to the constitution-the Declaration of Maryland, and continuing down to the surrender of Japan on board a United States' battleship in Tokyo harbour

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in 1945. By this means all those documents were placed before the citizens of the United States. The train toured the forty-eight states and brought to the people the greatness of her constitution, the significance of the lives of her statesmen, and the worthwhile things of her past.
What would similar action do to Canada? In the United States the people thereby appreciated the more what a tradition they had, and in consequence increased by about seventeen per cent the number of those going to the polls in the areas which the train visited. What a record we have in this country to carry to the Canadian people in such a freedom train! We could place directly before the people the things upon which our citizenship is built, its tradition and idealism. It would show the history of the French occupation, its explorers, its missionaries, and the contribution, that has been made by French Canada to the building of this country. There is the period of the development of .freedom; the Quebec Act- known for the most part only through the cursory study of history that is made in the public schools-the foundation of religious and racial freedom; and the Constitutional Act. We would see too the contribution of those of French and English origin to the preservation of this country under the British crown during the days of the American revolution. We would see their joint contributions in 1812. Those things would be visually brought to the attention of millions of Canadians. Coming down to the present, we could show something of what our freedoms mean, and how they can be preserved in but one way, by public service. The-train would carry copies of the British North America Act, the act of union. It would tell of the lives of our statesmen, and of all great Canadians of the past. Such a crusade across this country would do much towards cementing our Canadian citizenship. It would show Canadians, irrespective of racial origin, that we inherit the traditions of the past; that ours is a history of achievement; that we have been a custodian of freedom in two wars. These things would be brought home to Canadians everywhere-to the school children who would visit such a train and to the older people who would live in appreciation of the past through which they themselves had lived. To the younger people it would bring an opportunity and a challenge to serve. In the United States it cost $1,300,000 to launch the freedom train that travelled across that country. I feel that the minister could do much to interest the service organizations and the like in our country in launching a similar crusade, making Canadian citizenship a living, vibrant, 
present thing; for without a knowledge of the past, the present sometimes becomes difficult to understand.
Those are the two ideas that occur to me to carry into effect and to mould still more a common citizenship and to do away in this country with what is disappearing year by year, namely, a division as between east and west, between creed and creed and between race and race, and to assist in the development of a national consciousness. Canadians need the realization that Canadian citizenship is not a question of whence one's ancestors came, but consists of the extent to which you and I, regardless of racial origin, will live and build for a greater Canada.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I shall be brief this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I should like to concur in what the hon. member for Lake Centre has said with regard to citizenship, but personally I should like to deal with immigration specifically this afternoon. I liked the attitude of the minister in his statement, when he invited criticism of his estimates. Since coming to parliament in 1945 I have been one member who has consistently advocated a more comprehensive and a more aggressive program of immigration; I am going to do precisely that again this afternoon.
In his statement a few moments ago the minister said that "the aim of the immigration branch of the department is to promote an increase in the population of Canada". If that is the aim, it seems to me that the government has been maddeningly slow in carrying it out. I think the minister stated that we have had an annual average of about
90,000	persons coming to Canada since the end of the war. In view of our resources, and in view of our needs as a nation, surely that is not a record of which we can be too proud.
In my opinion the department we are discussing this afternoon is one of the most important of all government departments because the very future of Canada is tied up, at least to some extent, in whether this department is active or is not active.
I was pleased to read in the paper some months ago of the appointment of the new minister, and I had hoped at that time that it would augur more action on the part of this branch. I think it has, to a certain extent. I wish to congratulate the minister on the first step he took since taking over office, when he permitted certain German nationals to come to this country. That was a good step. In the past, Germans have always made good citizens in Canada, and I think they will do so in the future. My

only criticism of that step is that the regulations were not widened sufficiently; the categories were not widened; the age limits were not increased.
Some people may not agree with me today. I suppose there are a great many in the country who will not agree with me. But I think there are at least six specific reasons why Canada should adopt, and soon, a more aggressive immigration policy.
The first reason of course has to do with markets. Today we are looking all over the world for more markets. It seems to me that possibly we are overlooking a larger domestic market. If we had more people in this country, we could sell more wheat, more livestock and more manufactured goods here at home. I say that is the first reason why we should have a larger population. Our markets need not be so dependent upon the whim of foreign governments.
In the second place, of course, a larger population would mean a lower debt burden and a lower tax burden for the Canadians who are already here. As the minister himself stated, I think that, in the third place, under certain circumstances immigration actually would increase employment in this country; because every immigrant who comes to Canada is going to want a new home, furniture and the necessities of life; and these needs will create work for Canadians. I think that many of our labour officials are coming to agree with that viewpoint. Some weeks ago I read a Canadian Press dispatch which quoted Murray Cotterill, president of the Toronto labour council. On March 20, in an address in Toronto he is reported as saying:
. . . Canada must tackle its immigration and unemployment problems concurrently if there was to be any real solution of either one . . . "the more constructive aspects of immigration are being played down." He said that immigration had not caused unemployment.
Mr. Cotterill is, I think, one of the top labour officials in this country.
Then too. I should like to quote an editorial from The Ensign of March 15. This editorial had much in it with which I agree. It reads in part:
Canada is suffering from unemployment because she has a population too small to absorb anything but a fraction of her own production . . .
There is a relationship between unemployment and immigration ... It is in expansion of our human and material resources, not in timid contraction, that a solution can be found.
I think that most labour leaders are realizing that immigration would not necessarily bring about more unemployment in Canada.
In the fourth place I believe a larger population would do much to solve our railway problem. Today requests are being made by
21, 1950	1769
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the workers on the railways for increases in pay. On the other hand, we are having protests from many of our farm organizations and from many of our western provinces that railway rates must not go up. It seems to me that if Canada had a larger population and the railways had a greater volume of traffic we might be able to meet both of these demands concurrently. I am not sure whether we can meet them unless we have a larger population.
In the fifth place, I believe that more immigrants always bring aptitudes, scientific skills and new businesses to the country to which they come. Surely this would be to the advantage of Canada.
Finally, I think we need a larger population for reasons of defence, because, as has been said so many times in this house, we cannot expect that 14 million people can keep half a continent indefinitely. Something must be done in this connection. For these reasons and others I urge the minister today, or at the earliest possible moment, to announce a more concrete immigration policy.
It is interesting to note what our sister dominion, Australia, has done in dealing with this problem. Since the war Australia has had 200,000 immigrants a year on the average.
It is also interesting to note what effect that immigration has had on employment. Here on March 1, if my memory serves me, we had upwards of 400,000 people drawing unemployment insurance. The figure was somewhat under that, but not much. In Australia, on that same day, there were only 748 people drawing unemployment insurance. What is more, there were 100,000 jobs open. Therefore, in Australia immigration has not meant unemployment.
What are the prospects for the future? Well, all I can gather from what I read in the newspapers-the minister may have more information than I have-seems to indicate that in the future, for this year and ensuing * years, Canadian immigration will dwindle even more. British settlers are finding it ever more difficult to come to this country because of exchange regulations. The international refugee organization is ending this year. That organization brought a lot of citizens to Canada. Thus, unless we have more government interest, unless we have more government intervention in this department, the chances are that Canada will have fewer settlers annually in the future than she has had this past year.
I have four or five suggestions that I should like to make respectfully to the minister. Perhaps he will not adopt them, but at least he will listen, I am sure. I urge the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to take

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration a minimum objective of 200,000 immigrants a year. That is the objective Australia took, and that country has less resources than we have and a smaller population. Therefore I say that that figure should not be too high.
Second, I would suggest that the department immediately launch a specific campaign in Great Britain and in France to bring immigrants over to this country, if necessary by state aid or state loans, or something of that kind. Even if we have to subsidize their passages, I think the need for citizens is sufficiently great that it should be done.
Third, I suggest that Canada should do something to bring more displaced persons from Europe. There are still some over there with university degrees, and up to date these people have not been permitted to come. I was interested in a speech which Wing Commander Innes of the international relief organization made on the subject a short time ago. He is a government official, if my understanding is correct. He was speaking to the Toronto Rotary Club and he said this:
A stockpile of brains is waiting in Europe for Canadian assistance.
He referred to 26,000 displaced persons- most of them university graduates-who are still on that continent. One of the weaknesses of our Canadian immigration program is that we have had, as one newspaper reporter described it, a kind of "ban on brains". That seems a strange policy to me. I should like to see the minister let some of these white-collar workers, some of these educated people in the displaced persons camp, come in. I should like to see the regulation widened in that respect.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister if he would not widen the age limits, widen the categories more or less on a general basis. If he did that I think we would have more immigrants in this country. Probably the most neglected field in national affairs [DOT] today is this department of immigration. Or perhaps I should say it was the most neglected field before the present minister took over. I am hoping he will change it. I know of nothing that would stave off a possible recession, or that would keep conditions relatively prosperous in Canada, better than an expanding home market caused by more immigrants into this country. I recall that periods of greatest prosperity in the United States coincided with periods of greatest immigration.
This afternoon the minister said he thought he had public support for a greater immigration program. I too think he has, and I challenge him to throw off some of the lethargy and some of the apathy which in my very biased opinion have characterized his

department within the last three or four years. We have got to plan our immigration policy. It has to be planned in accordance with our absorptive capacity. We have to keep in mind employment possibilities. I admit that at once, but I repeat that 200,000 immigrants a year should be our minimum objective.


Mr. Shaw:: Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I appreciate this opportunity of expressing, although briefly, our attitude towards this extremely important question of immigration. It is not the first time that we have placed upon the record our views, and it will probably not be the last time. You will recall that in 1947, speaking for my colleagues, I laid particular emphasis upon the fact that what we do require in Canada is a specific and long-range program of selective immigration. We regard that as extremely essential for the welfare of our nation.
Upon that occasion I laid particular emphasis also upon the fact that our immigrants should certainly be carefully screened for the purpose, Mr. Chairman, of admitting only those who are able to meet the high physical, mental and moral standards which we set, and are willing and ready to accept the full responsibilities of Canadian citizenship and our Canadian way of life.
I should like to endorse the observations made by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I thought that his reference to those who constitute our population, whose ancestors originally came from other parts of the world, was made in a most striking way. We can witness in our own communities, in our own provinces, in fact in our whole Canada from shore to shore the grand contribution which has been made to Canada and to our Canadian way of life by those thousands, and even millions who have come from elsewhere to accept Canadian citizenship and to make their homes with us.
In his brief, on page 2, the minister read a statement which was made by the former prime minister in May of 1947 when he said:
The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration. The government will seek by legislation, regulation and vigorous administration to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can advantageously be absorbed in the national economy.
The former prime minister also made another assertion upon that occasion. I find that in Hansard of May 1, 1947, at page 2646 the former prime minister asserted:
With regard to the selection of immigrants, much has been said about discrimination. I wish to make it quite clear that Canada is perfectly within her rights in selecting the persons whom we regard as desirable future citizens. It is not a "fundamental human right" of any alien to enter Canada. It is a privilege.

I believe that that should have been included in the statement which is incorporated in the brief.
In the first part of his statement the minister asserted that the aim of the citizenship branch is to bring about full understanding and acceptance by such persons, and by the Indian population as well, of the benefits and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship. I believe that is a most desirable objective, but I am struck by the laxity of our efforts up to the present time. Certainly if I were to make only one recommendation it would be that we concentrate on the carrying out of the objective thus enunciated by the minister.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw touched upon a subject to which I have had occasion to refer in the house many times. Early in his observations this afternoon the minister stated that applications for admission of groups of skilled and unskilled workers have been made by industries and screened by an interdepartmental committee consisting of representatives of the immigration branch and the departments of labour, external affairs and national health and welfare. He pointed out that under the group movement plan approval has been given to the admission of refugees for employment as miners, railway workers, hydro construction workers, domestics, clothing industry workers and the like.
I refer to the minister's observations in this connection because it seems to me that ever since the war our policy has been to bring to the country only those who may be categorized as labourers. The hon. member for Moose Jaw was perfectly right when he said that we seemed fearful of that group of 26,000. They may be categorized as a professional group. Sometimes I wonder what pressures are brought to bear upon the government from within Canada, and from certain organizations, to prevent professional groups entering this country as immigrants.
I am not saying some have not entered. Certainly some have come here as labourers; and it is conceivable that at some later date they may have the opportunity to ehgage in their particular professions. But certainly there seems to be on many occasions a closed door against that group of persons, and we frequently read newspaper comment on the subject. This matter should be kept squarely in front of the government.
Later in his statement the minister, in referring to IRO, stated that this organization had estimated that on June 30 next there would be approximately 405,600 coming within its mandate in camps in Europe. Of these, he stated, 216,000 are considered to be suitable for resettlement somewhere. He
21, 1950	1771
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration pointed out that at the present time Canada is accepting domestics and farm workers from these camps.
I hope the minister, before the conclusion of this discussion, will tell the committee why the immigrants have been limited to those two categories again, namely domestics and farm workers. While I am dealing with IRO I would remind the minister of a matter I brought before the house last fall and which I intend to pursue at greater length during the consideration of these estimates. At that time I asked why it is that some immigrants coming to Canada, sponsored by relatives, find that those relatives have to pay the full cost of transportation, while in other cases with which I have been familiar transportation costs have been paid. I realize that last fall I was given an answer, after a fashion; but the answer did not suit me any too well, and on this occasion I shall press for further information.
In his statement the minister referred to those who are brought to Canada as farmers, and pointed out that it is probably better that they should acquire certain experience on Canadian farms before launching out on their own responsibility. He made reference to the guidance or assistance which may be and probably is given these persons who come here as farmers.
I would be the first to agree that it is far better for a farmer from continental Europe to work on a farm in this country for a while before launching out on his own. However, I am not completely satisfied with many of the conditions under which those immigrants have been obliged to work on Canadian farms. I know of many instances, some of which have been brought to the attention of the officials, where contracts have been broken by farmers. Those contracts were not broken by the immigrants themselves, but the result was that they were forced out on the road and given no assistance whatsoever in their endeavour to acquire holdings for themselves. That is a matter which should be given some consideration.
The minister said that 183,000 immigrants had settled in Ontario. I would ask for a breakdown for all the provinces and, in doing so, I am going to express a conviction which I hold in common with my colleagues. Immigration of non-British subjects is a matter which falls squarely under federal jurisdiction. However, once these immigrants come to Canada they are permitted to settle anywhere they like in Canada. It is conceivable that a large number of them may decide to remain within the boundaries of one province. Owing to certain conditions which may

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration develop within the country as a consequence, in part, of national government policy, we may run into a period of recession.
In those circumstances, what occurs? If those persons are unable to provide for themselves, under the law they become the responsibility of the municipalities and provinces. I say the federal government should accept responsibility for their welfare until such time as they acquire Canadian citizenship. Possibly if that were done the federal government would give more consideration to assuring the maintenance of an economy which would not result in those persons becoming a burden upon the country.
There are only three or four other matters I should like to mention. The first of these concerns German nationals. I realize that conceivably it is a touchy question, especially at the moment. I will agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw when he says that many of the finest citizens we have ever had in this country have been persons of German ancestry. It happens that there are a good number of them in my own constituency whom I would classify as among the best farmers in that area.
I am not too happy, not so much with respect to the regulations applying to German nationals, but more to the slowness with which so many of the applications are being handled. I have had before me a great number of such applications which have been dragging, dragging, dragging. Possibly the minister would indicate the nature of the difficulty encountered by their inspection officers on the continent, particularly in respect of these German citizens. I^speak, primarily at the moment of those who are sponsored by relatives residing in Canada. There are all too many instances when the department could say either yes or no. Instead they have chosen to bolster the hopes of those concerned and then, through delay in making decisions, dash those hopes to the ground.
I agree with what was said by the former prime minister when, speaking on May 1, 1947, he said:
There will. I am sure, be general agreement with the view that the people of Canada do not wish, as a result of mass immigration, to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large-scale immigration from the Orient would change the fundamental condition, of the Canadian population.
I agreed with the former prime minister when he made that assertion in 1947, but there are one or two situations which I believe should be checked. The first is the regulation respecting the entry into Canada of wives and children of Canadian citizens of Chinese origin. A number of cases in my constituency have been brought to my attention,

one being a Canadian of Chinese origin who was permitted to bring his wife and some of his children into Canada, but when it came to those who happened to be over 18 years he was told, "No, the door is closed." There are cases when such children are in school or university and are dependent upon their parents, yet the door is closed. The mother and the rest of the family are told that they may come to Canada but certain children must be left at home.
I am of the opinion that this regulation should be amended to allow in children up to 21 years of age. I know it will be said that someone will then want to increase the limit to 25 years, but that is a hollow sort of argument.
Then we run into a situation with respect to Japanese. We witnessed a repatriation to Japan, some of it voluntary, of persons of Japanese origin who had become Canadian citizens. Some of these took back minor children who had been born in Canada. Those children knew no other country and yet they cannot return because they are the victims of circumstance. Many of them have since come of age and desire to return to Canada and I think favourable consideration should be given to their cases. I hasten to add that there should first be a careful check. Canada seems to have no clear-cut policy in this connection. According to my best information it is the only country to which these people cannot return. Possibly the minister will refer to this during the course of the discussion.
I do not think I need say any more except to repeat that my colleagues arid I are in favour of a specific long-range selective immigration program. We believe that all immigrants should be carefully screened. This is necessary at the present stage of world events when we know that efforts will be made by certain persons of communistic, fascist or nazi leanings to get into our country. Every precaution should be taken to stop this.
We believe that these persons should give a clear-cut and definite indication of their willingness to accept the responsibility of Canadian citizenship and our way of life. The dominion government should accept responsibility for the welfare of these persons until they acquire citizenship. I do not mean by that that we should tell them when they come in that they need do nothing, that all will be provided. But if we are faced with great masses of unemployed within our country these people may be among the first to become unemployed because many of them will experience difficulty in fitting into the conditions they find in our country. I wish to commend

the minister, as others have, upon his attitude toward this whole question. It is extremely significant that he welcomes criticism and I wish he could convince his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), to adopt the same attitude.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Speaker, the three
branches of government which have been brought under this department are branches in which I have been deeply interested and I am extremely glad that they have been put under a separate department with a minister of their own. In the past they were submerged in other departments where they did not get the attention their importance deserved. I think this department holds possibilities of being perhaps the most important in the government set-up, at least as far as the future development and welfare of Canada is concerned.
Hon. members in all parts of the house have indicated their agreement on this matter. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) made a statement in western Canada in which he advocated a population of 50 million and that steps should be taken immediately to reach that goal. There are indications of more or less complete agreement by all political parties that one of the most vital needs of this country is more people. There is considerable disagreement of course as to the way in which that increased population shall be secured.
I had a few reasons to give why more people are necessary, but the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) has dealt with most of them and I shall not repeat them. One matter he did not go into is the way in which an increased population would cut down governmental administrative costs per person. The tax load would be spread and would enable a reduction in taxation to be made. I should like to add that to. the various reasons the hon. member gave.
I should like to say a word or two about the necessity of more people if we are to hold this country. In the present disturbed state of the world, with the terribly overcrowded condition which exists in Asia and to a large extent in Europe, it is just not in the cards that some 14 million people should endeavour to maintain themselves indefinitely on this great half continent. At our present rate of increase it is prognosticated by the statisticians that we will have a static population of only 18 million in 1980. In order to defend this country we must have a much greater population; therefore, from the point of view of defence, this is extremely important.
On May 1, 1947, as the minister indicated in his speech, the then prime minister, Mr. 21, 1950	1773
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration King, made an announcement in regard to the Canadian immigration* policy. This will be found on page 2644 of Hansard of May 1, 1947, from which I quote as follows:
The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration.
That was followed by a statement with regard to a short-term policy. Mr. King said that it was extremely difficult to do much in connection with immigration on any considerable scale because of the shortage of shipping, but he outlined a short-range policy. He then went on to deal with the long-range policy, and I quote from page 2645 as follows:
Let me now speak of the government's long-term program. It is based on the conviction that Canada needs population. The government is strongly of the view that our immigration policy should be devised in a positive sense, with the definite objective, as I have already stated, of enlarging the population of the country. This it will seek to attain through the development and energetic application of productive immigration measures.
That statement was welcomed by all parties in the house, and the hope was expressed that these energetic and positive measures would be taken. Unfortunately the results have not been very encouraging, and in my opinion the reason is that the energetic application of productive immigration measures has not been put into effect. No real effort has been made to bring any considerable number of people to this country. In that connection the figures given by the minister today are disappointing. From 1945 to 1949, 379,000 people are all that were brought to this country. That makes an average of 75,800 per year. It includes the wives and children of Canadian ex-servicemen who were married in England, and who constitute a considerable percentage of that 379,000. It is an extremely disappointing number.
The minister stated that last year we brought in somewhere in the neighbourhood of 95,000. The immigration record of Australia was referred to by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. I must say he was somewhat out in the figures he gave. I have here a press release issued by the Commonwealth of Australia on the 27th March, 1950. It shows that in 1949 Australia took in 168,000 people, and in that same year there were no permanent departures from the country. In other words, that was all net gain. In our case, although we took in only 95,000 people, there were-I do not remember now what the figures are-a considerable number of people who left the country. Therefore the 95,000 is not net gain. We have got to cut the figure down considerably. A country between one-third and one-half the size of Canada took in and retained more than twice as many people as we did. Surely that in itself
1774	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration is a stricture on the immigration policy pursued by the government during the past two or three years.
The Commonwealth of Australia has a definite policy and objective at which they are aiming. This same press release states:
The Australian minister of immigration, Mr. Harold Holt, plans to receive 200,000 migrants per year for the next five years, at least half of which will come from the United Kingdom.
On the basis of what the Australian government did last year I think they will reach the figure of 200,000. It appears to me that, owing to reasons which have been mentioned before, currency difficulties and the gradual disappearance of desirable types of people in the d.p. camps and so forth, unless a change is made Canada will probably not do as well as we did last year. We will have considerably fewer than the 95,000 we brought in last year unless a change is made. It is certainly time that, as indicated in Mr. King's speech in 1947, something really positive and energetic was put into effect. It is time for action.
So far as immigration is concerned, the situation in Canada seems to be that practically all groups and organizations of people in the country give lip service to the idea of immigration. They say: Yes, we need people: it is a good thing, and so forth. Nevertheless when it comes to the practical business of bringing people into the country there is in actual fact active opposition on the part of many groups and individuals to the bringing in of immigrants on any reasonable scale whatever. You constantly meet two statements. One is that we must not bring any immigrants to this country unless we have jobs for them to come to. The second is that we must not bring them here unless there is housing for them. So long as that attitude prevails, so long as the idea is followed that we should not bring immigrants here unless we have jobs and houses waiting for them, it is my opinion that we will never have immigration to amount to anything.
I think the fallacy of these ideas is best demonstrated by the experience of the United States during the past century. In that country they had a tremendous flood of immigration particularly from the time of the civil war on, and people came in for many years at the rate of over a million a year. They did not come to jobs waiting for them; they did not come to houses waiting for them. They made jobs, they built houses, and in doing so created more and more employment for the people who were already there. In my opinion the same thing would happen in Canada if we would open the doors sufficiently wide to let people come in from Europe. In that regard I should like to put on the record part of an
[Mr. Harkness.l

article by Sir Norman Angell which appeared in the London Observer not long ago. It reads as follows:
One feature of the American experience vitally concerns the future of the British commonwealth. If we profit by its very plain lesson, the commonwealth may become, within the space of one lifetime, as great and as wealthy as is the United States today. But not if the lesson is rejected.
The year this writer was born (1874) the United States had a smaller population than Britain has today; and less than half the present combined population of Britain and the overseas dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa.
At Lincoln's death the population of the United States, confederate and union states, negroes and whites combined, numbered little more than 30 million. It was a 30 million, moreover, inhabiting a country devastated by a murderous war, much of its best blood drained away in the enormous casualties, facing a bitter racial conflict still unresolved, and possessing (please note) a badly depreciated paper currency.
In other words, there was all the evidence at that time of what we would call a major depression and extremely bad conditions. The article continues:
Yet thousands bom into that situation were to live to see the 30-million nation become one of nearly 150 million, enjoying the highest standard of life for the common man anywhere in the world or at any period of history; and able, over and above that, out of its surplus, to furnish aid to half the world in its need.
While it is true that the factor of free immigration could not of itself, without political sagacity, have achieved for the United States today s result, it is also true that without free immigration no political wisdom would have sufficed. Consider the figures. In a little over the fifty years following the civil war the country admitted over 33 million immigrants; that is to say, a number in excess of the country's whole population at the beginning of that period. There were years-several-in which more than one million immigrants were admitted in the twelve months.
The world of the 19th century has also had its displaced persons problems . . .
I should like to continue reading a little further on in the article:
This immigration on a scale which in our day of quotas, restrictions, controls, planning, would be regarded as disastrous and impossible, did not disrupt the receiving country's economy; it greatly benefited thereby, since this alone made possible a rapid development of its natural resources.
It did not lower the American standard of life, which rose steadily all the time. It did not swamp the country's distinctive culture or political institutions_it was the means by which the effective
defence of those became possible. That unplanned world solved, without even knowing that it was doing it, and with great benefit to itself, a problem which our planned world finds in many of its aspects all but insoluble.
That is an example, Mr. Chairman, of what happened in the United States. If the same policy were followed here, similar results could be obtained. It is because of fear of the loss of their jobs, or competition from outside sources on the part of the various groups, that prevents the adoption of a policy

of at least partially free immigration. Until we get rid of that fear, which is based on completely fallacious reasoning as shown by what happened in the country to the south of us, we are not going to make great progress in this country. We are not going to have any appreciable amount of immigration.
I wish to mention, Mr. Chairman, some practical steps which could be taken to increase the amount of immigration. The difficulties which arise from the currency restrictions now in effect throughout the world have been mentioned. About two or three years ago the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) and I were approached by some persons representing farmers of substantial means in the United Kingdom who wished to come to this country and bring out their capital in order to start farming. For the most part they were people engaged in the raising of purebred livestock of various types. They were people who could have made a great contribution to the purebred livestock industry in this country because they had the skills. We approached the then minister of immigration, as well as the minister of finance, in connection with the matter. They agreed it was desirable that these people be brought into the country. The scheme presented was that the dominion government would take over the assets of these people in the old country, and advance them funds in this country. Then as currency restrictions were removed, or as the opportunity arose, the government would dispose of these holdings in Great Britain, and thus recoup the money lent to these immigrants. There was no idea of making any gifts to these people, or anything like that. It was a matter of lending them the money, secured by assets in Great Britain. I could not see any reason why a scheme of that sort should not have been put into effect. It was a sound, practical scheme which would not have cost the dominion one cent because, in addition to the security the dominion had in the form of these assets in the old country, the government also had the land and livestock which the people purchased in this country. There was no possibility - of . losing, but nothing was done about it. The foreign exchange control board people said the scheme presented many difficulties, and, as I say, nothing came of it. I cite that as one example of something practical that could have been done to bring out some of the most desirable people as immigrants.
Another form which assistance to immigrants could take is that of a repayable loan to cover transportation expenses. I would be willing to admit that there might be some losses in that connection. A certain number
21, 1950	1775
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of the people brought out might prove to be no good, become dissatisfied and return to their place of origin. Some money might be lost. I would think that the amount of money lost would be small in comparison with the benefits which would be derived from such a plan. Certainly, with currency restrictions as they are, and the various other difficulties in the way of people moving from place to place, we will not get many people out here unless the government takes some definite action along that line.
I should like to say a word or two now in connection with citizenship. The matter has been referred to in an excellent presentation by the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker). I agree with him that the people of this country must get rid of this hyphenated Canadianism. I think that can be done best through the schools. As was pointed out by the member for Lake Centre, the people of the United States are not spoken of as German-Americans or Norwegian-Americans; they are all Americans. There is a unity of spirit which is patriotic, and which moves them. In Canada we have not got anything like the same spirit. A large number of people still look upon their country of origin with more affection than they regard Canada, the country to which they now belong.
I believe that one of the reasons for the great difference in this connection is that we have made no conscious effort to teach Canadianism to our school children. When I first went to school, it so happened that my family was in Denver, Colorado, for about nine months. I well remember that every day when we came into class the first thing we had to do was to salute the flag, which was up on the wall in front of us, and recite some sort of patriotic poem. Except for the recitation of the poem, this procedure was repeated every time we went into class; when we came in after recess; when we came in at noon; when we went out for afternoon recess; and when we left at four o'clock. The ceremony of saluting the flag impressed upon those small children the fact that they were Americans. It went on day after day. In addition to that, I remember there were a good many stories about the origin of the union, about the state of California and things of that sort. A strong and definite effort was made to teach Americanism to these children. My information is that the process continues right through public and high school. I think that is one of the main reasons why the people south of the border have succeeded in building up a spirit of nationhood and a spirit of unity amongst themselves so much better than we have. I believe we must follow their example if we are to accomplish the same results.
1776	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I should like to say a few words about Indian affairs, Mr. Chairman. I shall have something more to say on this subject when we come to the particular votes concerning that department. Some time before Easter, the minister stated that the revised Indian Act would be introduced after the Easter recess. I took it that he meant immediately after Easter. I wish to ask a question, which the minister can answer when he speaks. Can any indication be given as to when this act will be introduced? I would point out that the session has been under way for some considerable time, and the amount of time left for consideration of this act will be none too long. The sooner it is introduced, the better. The Indian Act has not had a proper revision for over fifty years, so the amendments to it will be extensive. Under those circumstances, it should not be rushed through in a short time. We should be prepared to give the matter full consideration. For that reason, in my opinion, the act should be introduced at the earliest moment. Apart from anything else, the Indians of this country, who are the people most concerned, are very much interested in knowing what those amendments are, so they can make representations in connection with them. I think that they should be given the right to make those representations.
The second question I would like to ask the minister is what provision, if any, has been made for securing the ideas or opinions of the Indians on the changes which are incorporated in the revised act. I presume a considerable number of the changes will be ones which were recommended by the joint committee which met from 1946 to 1948 inclusive, and which heard the evidence of large numbers of Indians. Therefore the changes should, and I hope will, reflect the wishes of the Indians and their ideas in these matters as expressed before that committee. In addition to that, however, I would expect there might be other changes on which the opinion of the Indians has not been expressed. I therefore think an opportunity should be given when this bill is sent to a committee, or at some other stage, for taking advice, shall we say, from the representatives of our Indian population with regard to their wishes in the matter of the revision of the act.


Mr. Mclvor:: I have a question to ask the minister, but first I should like to express appreciation of the splendid statement he has made, thus showing the grip he has of the task that was committed to him. I would also state that I have been the cause of perhaps considerable extra work for the officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration; and I want to thank the officials for


the prompt replies and for the happiness that they have helped to bring to new citizens of Canada.
My question is from a group of farmers who had working for them during the war German citizens who were interned in Canada. These men did a good job. They were also happy and began to enter into the spirit of the community. I was just wondering whether any consideration will be given to making it possible for these men to come back and make Canada their home.
Another thing we find is that some people object to the d.p.'s in Canada. I traced two of them. One young man objected to d.p.'s coming because they took his work. I said to him, "There is a place I know of where fifty men can be employed and they cannot get d.p.'s. Are you willing to go there?" "Oh," he says, "I don't want to go out of the city." In another place I was addressing a meeting when one young man came up and in spicy language blamed the dominion government for taking his job and giving it to a d.p. My Irish, of course, got the better of me and I said, "You are just the man we are looking for. What we want now is your name and address, and the job that you lost." He tried to sidetrack me but a young man sitting beside him said, "Are you ashamed of your name?" I insisted that he give us his name and address, but he did not do so and he made himself scarce for the rest of the meeting.
I know a number of these d.p.'s who have come out. They have lived up to their obligations; they are not now a care of the state for work, but have made work for themselves and are helping others. I just want to express my appreciation of the way in which the young minister is taking hold of his job, and to wish him the best kind of success.


Mr. Coldwell:: I should like to join with the others who have congratulated the minister upon his appointment to this important portfolio and to say that we are expecting great things of him. This afternoon we have heard a series of interesting speeches on immigration and on citizenship. I think that the matter has been approached this afternoon in a manner which reflects great credit upon the committee and upon members of all parties in the committee. I was particularly interested in the speech made by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I found myself very much in agreement with him. Like the hon. member, I look back now over a period of over forty years in western Canada.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: You are still a boy.


Major James William Coldwell: I saw many of these European immigrants come into the country and I wondered, like many others, what effect they would ultimately have on the social life and the economy of our country. I taught some of their children. As I move around the country today I find, occupying honoured and respected places in the community, men and women I knew as immigrants who looked rather depressed when they came here, wearing the costumes of the country from which they came, and finding difficulty with the language of the country to which they came. Today these men and women, the boys and girls of yesterday, are making a real contribution to the welfare and to the citizenship of this country.
I shall never forget the occasion when I, with two of my colleagues, the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Cape Breton South, in October, 1944, shortly after France and Belgium had been liberated, had the opportunity of visiting Dieppe. As I said once before in this house after I returned from that trip, we visited the cemetery and walked among the rows of crosses, largely of course looking for members of the South Saskatchewan regiment which had been badly cut up in the raid. I could not help noticing the number of names, as the hon. member for Lake Centre has pointed out this afternoon, that were obviously neither French nor Anglo-Saxon. Lying side by side were boys with Freneh-Canadian names, English names, Scotch names, Irish names, Welsh names but also with names representing racial origins from almost every country in central Europe. To one who saw that, it was an object lesson of what had happened in our country.
I am inclined to disagree a little with the hon. member for Calgary East when he says that perhaps we have not done enough in our schools. I do not think that the saluting of the flag or the reciting of some patriotic poem has much real effect. I think that the far greater effect is produced by the example of the teacher, the atmosphere of the school and, most of all, the inculcation of the love of our history and of our literature. That the schools have largely done.
The hon. member for Lake Centre spoke of organizing a freedom train something like that which was sent across the United States.
I do not know just how feasible that is in such a scattered country as ours; but I think there is another agency that we could use to perhaps even greater advantage, and that is the national film board. Last week I
21, 1950	1777
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration was preparing a talk, to be given at a local church last Sunday evening, on the beginnings of some of our freedoms. I had in mind particularly a discussion of the manner in which we had developed, and our personal liberty had been protected by, the common jury. During the preceding week, I saw a number of films. I wanted to use one. I could not find any Canadian film that was suitable to give any indication of the manner in which our freedoms had grown up in this country. I chose a British film. I am not complaining because the film board has not done this yet. I am simply suggesting that perhaps by means of visual education, both among our adult population and in our schools, we can. give newcomers to this country a better understanding of our institutions, and the manner in which the freedoms we enjoy have come down to us through the ages.	[DOT]
Of course, I have a rather strong sense of history, and I put a great deal of faith in the fact that an understanding of our history gives us an understanding of our institutions of today, and helps us to understand the path that we may have to tread tomorrow. I am suggesting to the minister that he might get in touch with the film board and see if one, two or three films, outlining the manner in which the freedoms that the newcomers to this country will enjoy, have been obtained and developed for us, and how we have achieved perhaps the nationhood that we now enjoy. I think that would be a splendid thing, particularly for the newcomers to the country, and for use in our schools. Take this institution of parliament, with its long history, with the customs that are behind it. I saw a film of the opening of parliament. It was very impressive, but the symbolism of this institution is something which lies deeply embedded in the history of our two peoples, both English and French, because France is sometimes said to be the mother of democracy, just as Britain is sometimes said to be the father of the institutions of democracy. Therefore I am making the suggestion to the minister.
I agree with the hon. members who suggested the other day that we should have a distinctive flag. I think we should try to get our people to understand what symbolism is in a distinctive flag, and perhaps in a distinctive national song as well. The country may not be ripe for these things, but at least as our people understand our Canadianism and our institutions they will become ripe for them, and I think it does not mean in any way that we break with symbols and institutions of the past. Rather
1778	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I think we build upon those institutions a citizenship and a nationhood which will have many distinctive characteristics and which will appeal to our people tooth now and in the future.


Mr. Smith (Calgary West):: The minister is a flag expert.


Major James William Coldwell: He was the chairman of the committee, but the committee did not quite achieve results, and yet perhaps it did achieve the result of awakening public interest in the problem of a national symbol of that description.
I want to say a word in appreciation of the officials of his department for what they have done in the way of immigration. Perhaps it is true that, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw said, we have not had as many immigrants as we might have had; but I have been deeply appreciative of the manner in which the officials, both of the department of immigration and of the Department of Labour, have co-operated in bringing into this country persons who had suffered for the democratic cause, and who have been resettled here, and who I believe in days to come will make a contribution that will be worth-while in the building of this new nation.
I agree too with the idea so well expressed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, that we should take more of the more highly educated types who are trying to find a chance to live elsewhere. We have been picking and choosing of course those who are at all capable of performing heavy manual labour. I think we could also absorb many more of those who can contribute to the fields of medicine, of dentistry, of teaching in our institutions of learning, of improving the cultural life of this nation by way of music, art and so on. There are quite a number of these people who would like to come to Canada if we could settle them satisfactorily; but that would need the co-operation of many institutions in this country, and I think that co-operation should be sought by the minister.
I am going to say one other thing before I sit down. Anyone who has been in Europe since the war, and in Germany where there are displaced persons, anyone who has visited the displaced persons camps, as I have had the privilege of doing, will know that there are people who are something of a residue and a hard core, people who perhaps were maimed in some of the raids over the countries at war, people who had fled from oppression, sympathized with our aims and with our ideals, and yet when our planes bombed the cities where they were located they were maimed or partially incapacitated in some


way. There are others who, for reasons perhaps of some physical defect, or not being altogether sound in health, are doomed to remain in ' the countries where they sought refuge during the war. I think that these countries-our own, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Africa, Australia and so on, Christian countries-have a Christian duty to perform. I think that these nations should get together and see what percentage of this residue can be taken care of in our countries. We have picked the best. Now we have this hard core. I think Christian principles demand that we should succor those who have suffered, are not quite up to par and cannot reach our standards of fitness.
I am not suggesting that Canada should do this alone. I know that we cannot. I do think that an attempt should be made through the international refugee organization, and when the United Nations is discussing immigration, citizenship and so on, to see whether some understanding cannot be reached among the nations that are in a position to do something to help those very unfortunate people. I want to leave that with the minister as my final thought. I know him well enough to know that he will consider a question of this description. I hope that in cooperation with other nations situated similarly to our own a humanitarian solution to this problem of the hard core of displaced humanity left in the European camps may be found.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, in considering the statement that the minister has made this afternoon, it would not be appropriate to, deal with it as though he were called upon to accept responsibility for the present situation, because he has assumed office fairly recently in a department that has been newly set up. Although the department has been newly set up, it carries forward activities that have been going on for some time. With the general statement as to the purposes of the department the minister now administers, I am sure there is general agreement. But it is well to examine what he states to be the purpose of the immigration branch. In describing the policy of that branch he quotes a statement made in 1947 by the then prime minister, who said:
The policy of the government is to foster the growth of the population of Canada by the encouragement of immigration.
I would have been more encouraged if the minister had said that he has now taken over this department, that he has found the situation is not satisfactory, and had given some indication of the changes he was going to make.


have been done and at great saving, both in the handling of the applications and to those who are making the applications.
There is no reason whatever why a prospective immigrant should not have declared to him, through the press of the country where he wishes to make application, the address of principal and conveniently located offices where every single detail from the first X-ray examination right through to the arrangements for transportation can be completed by those attached to the department of immigration who are trained to carry out this work efficiently.
The applicant could be X-rayed. Passing that test he could then go on to have his medical examination. Having passed that examination he could then comply with the various other requirements. He could have his photograph taken, he could make arrangements for a passport right there and the ordinary procedure could be carried out with the appropriate officials of the British government. The British government has indicated its willingness to co-operate to the extent of extending these facilities to any offices of that kind that are established.
Moreover, all the details of our money arrangements can be made known, what the value of our money is and so on. Right in that office the local currency could be exchanged for our currency and the necessary credit given without the applicant leaving the office. Arrangements for transportation could be settled and the applicant permitted to return to his home to wait for notification from the appropriate branch of the department of immigration that he should be ready to sail on a particular date.
That will encourage immigration of the kind of people that we want, of people who like to see things done in an efficient way and who are actually impressed by evidence that this whole project is on a businesslike basis and that they may expect businesslike dealing with their problem when they arrive at the other end. When they do arrive at this end there should be a closely integrated arrangement between the dominion agencies and the provincial authorities in each province so that the provincial authorities may be informed of the arrival of people with some indication of the type of qualifications they possess.
In addition to the ordinary facilities of the dominion government agencies an opportunity should be provided to channel these people to any special opportunities for work that may exist in any particular province. There is a psychological effect upon the new arrival in the fact that from beginning to end he has received an impression of efficiency, of

encouragement, that the people with whom he is dealing are people who work in a businesslike way, and that when he does get here he will find similar businesslike methods at the other end.
Every remark I have made applies with equal force to every country from which new citizens might be welcomed to Canada. As to the suggestion made from time to time that we gain no special advantage from immigration other than the arrival of additional numbers in our population, may I point out that it is doubtful if over the centuries there has been a time when so many people of special qualifications have been torn loose from their own domestic moorings, and are not only anxious to seek new fields of opportunity but will carry to the country to which they go special skills which will create employment for other people as well as for themselves. I could name scores of industries, large and small, in Canada today that have been established by people from different countries who, through the dislocation of war and its impact upon their domestic life, have opened up in this country new opportunities for hundreds, for thousands, of other Canadians in entirely new fields of human endeavour.
I can think of certain new packing processes in western Canada with which the Minister of Agriculture is well acquainted, and which have found their way here through these very circumstances. I can think of highly skilled plastic industries that have been created simply as a result of highly trained men and women being under the necessity of leaving their homes and coming here. In addition to those who have created new industrial opportunities of one kind or another, many of us have seen the new agricultural skills brought to this country by highly skilled agriculturists, not only of Great Britain, France and Italy but of almost every European country, which in many cases have demonstrated to us better ways of making use of our soil for the production of particular crops. All that has meant new wealth and new employment for Canadians as well as advantage to the people who have come here.
Among the arrivals in the past few years have been highly trained engineers and draftsmen who are in the great electrical plants from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and who are contributing immensely today to the building of these new sources of power from one side of the country to the other. Among those who have come here are scientists who have been expanding new opportunities in old industries and in old types of production.
21, 1950	1781
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Among those who have come here are some of the greatest research doctors in the world. In the universities across our country today are men of high medical skill who have simply become available as prospective Canadian citizens through the tragic circumstances of the past few years.
So it is also in the field of art. We have in Canada musicians who are adding to the rich culture of our life and who came here only because of the dislocation which has urged so many people to move, and urges so many others to move today. Among those who have come are educationalists, writers, people who will give pleasure as well as advantage to every part of Canada. Yes, and there are workers as well in every field of activity who are doing their share. They are all workers no matter what their occupation may be. Every new citizen means new production and new wealth.
If the policy as stated by the government is to be carried out, I strongly urge that the procedure in every country where we are accepting applications be simplified. That will be no more costly, and in fact will be much less costly, both for the government and for prospective citizens of Canada. I do not offer this by way of criticism in detail because the minister has just taken over his office, but simply as a suggestion which I hope he will accept for consideration in the new task he has undertaken. As has been said here earlier today, when people choose Canada as their home we want them to think of themselves as Canadians. Once they have made a choice and accepted this country as their home, then let all of us keep impressing constantly upon the minds of our people that there are no foreigners in Canada, that we are all Canadians. In our approach to this whole problem, from the very day that the intending immigrant to Canada makes his first approach to the department of education to the time that he or she or their families arrive here, I urge that there be that simplification, that efficiency, that generous approach which makes them believe that they are being welcomed as new citizens of a great country who will be heartily accepted as equal partners in our Canadian social structure. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge at this point that we ask for a clear definition of policy and, whatever the policy is, that businesslike methods be applied to its implementation.
Item stands.
At six o'clock the Speaker lesumed the chair and the house took recess.
1782	HOUSE OF
United Grain Growers Limited AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



UNITED GRAIN GROWERS LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. V/eir (Portage-Neepawa) moved the second reading of Bill No. 84, respecting United Grain Growers Limited.
Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Gilbert Weir: Mr. Speaker, this bill from the Senate seeks to secure certain amendments to the charter of the United Grain Growers Limited of Winnipeg and Calgary. As a background to this measure, I should like to say that the company was first incorporated in 1906 under the Manitoba Joint Stock Companies Act. It was then known by the name of Manitoba Grain Growers Grain Company. In 1909 its original incorporation was replaced by a private act of the province of Manitoba. As its business developed along interprovincial lines it sought, and secured in 1911, a special dominion act of incorporation, which act was amended in 1918 to allow the company to distribute part of its earnings as patronage dividends.
In 1917 the company was merged with a similarly organized farmers' company in Alberta, known as the Alberta Farmers Co-operative Company, and the original act of incorporation changed the name of the amalgamated company to that of the United Grain Growers Limited. Other additional changes secured at that time provided that shareholders were to be grouped into locals for the purpose of appointing delegates to annual meetings, and proxy voting was disallowed. The original authorized capital of the company was $250,000. This was increased by the amendment of 1909 to $1 million, and upon federal incorporation in 1911 the capital authorized was further increased to $2 million, in $25 shares, limited in their sale to bona fide farmers, farmers' wives, renters of land, and with a limitation of 200 shares to any one person. A further increase in capital to $5 million was authorized at the time of the amalgamation with the Alberta company in 1917. The shares of the new company were exchanged for shares of the Alberta Farmers' Co-operative Company, and by 1930 the paid up capital stood at approximately $3,400,000.
In 1930 the company experienced some difficulty in replacing the shares of its members who had retired or passed away. It was their desire to keep their shareholder membership current and active. To meet this rather unusual situation the company, through a bylaw subsequently approved at an annual meeting, secured authority to divide its shares


into two classes. This authority allowed the company to issue 200,000 class "A" non-voting shares at a par value of $20, and 200,000 of class "B" membership shares at a par value of $5. These class "B" shares carried voting privileges of the delegates to the shareholders' annual meeting, but were not guaranteed as to dividends. Class "A" shares have a preference as to dividends to the extent of five per cent over any other payments or dividends that the company may make.
The total paid up capital of the company has remained at approximately $3,400,000 from 1930 to 1948. The company, however, has recently acquired a further line of 110 elevators in western Canada, and wishes to sell additional class "A" shares. There are at present 186,825 non-voting shares with a par value of $3,736,500, and 54,213 class "B" voting shares having a par value of $271,065. Briefly, that is the picture leading up to the present situation, so far as the company is concerned.
The main purpose of the amendments now proposed is to seek authority to do certain things that experience would appear to warrant. First of all, the company is seeking authority to increase its capital stock from $5 million to $7,500,000; second, to reduce the authorized number of class "B" voting shares from 200,000 to 100,000, and to convert these shares into class "A" shares. To date approximately 54,000 of these class "B" shares have been sold, and the directors feel that 100,000 will be sufficient to allow this type of shareholder to continue to control the company, particularly when the company has authority to purchase these shares for resale but is not allowed to retain more than ten per cent outstanding at any one time.
In section 8 of the bill, the company seeks powers granted ordinarily under the dominion Companies Act, and which are now generally granted as a matter of course to all companies seeking dominion incorporation, as well as similar powers being granted by most if not all provincial governments.
In section 9 of the bill it is seeking authority to bring the provisions with respect to payments of patronage dividends more in accordance with current practices.
The fifth rather important change has to do with company procedure as set out in section 10. The company holds a delegated annual meeting of shareholders once a year, and pays the expenses of all the delegates attending this annual meeting. This is usually a large item of expense. It frequently happens that at some of the meetings the directors secure authority in advance to do certain things. The company feels that

when such authority is granted at an annual meeting, it should not be required to place the same matter before a later annual meeting for endorsation.
The other amendments are largely for the purpose of clarification of the charter. I might add that the company has been in the grain business in western Canada for about 44 years. Its financial standing is sound, there having been only four years in the 1930's when it failed to meet its five per cent annual dividend. The original act of incorporation, together with the amending acts, discloses that the company conforms to the essential features of the Rochdale form of co-operative organization. It restricts the number of shares that may be owned by any one person, and adheres to the principle one share one vote. It distributes its earnings as patronage dividends after the payment of a reasonable rate of interest, which in this case is five per cent on share capital.
I might say also that the act has already passed the Senate, where it was referred to a special committee at which representatives of the company appeared to explain what they were seeking. The company is well established, and enjoys a good reputation in the communities where it does business. I trust that these amendments which it is now seeking will be approved by the house. After the second reading, the bill will be referred to a committee of the house, where the officers of the company or their representatives will be available to give any further explanations which may be required.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The
application just made has to do with the increase in capital of an organization which I think is the most truly co-operative organization, judged .by any proper standards, that we have in connection with handling grain in western Canada. It is a company with which I have been familiar since its origin many years ago. I might add that I do not act in any way for that company, but it is a farm organization which, by co-operation among its individual members, made a great success in the marketing of grain. They have never sought from this or any other government any favours of any description. Now that its assets run, roughly, in the neighbourhood of $16 million, just in the course of its ordinary business it may require further capital for expansion. The procuring of that capital is limited to purchases of shares by farmers who are at once owners and customers of the organization. As I say, having been familiar with it, and having made a reasonably careful study of these amendments now being sought, I am anxious to add my voice
Industrial Relations
to that of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) in the hope that the bill will have a speedy passage. May I also add that these shares have never been listed on any exchange of any kind; and, on account of the limitation in voting power, there is no opportunity given to any group, no matter how much money they may have, of getting control of this organization which is of a type that many of us living in that country thought perhaps was the answer to many of our problems.
I simply add my voice to that of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa in hoping that this house will give this measure quick passage, relying on the opportunity that members will have to examine officers of this corporation in order to smoke out any difficulties. I am frank to confess that I have been unable to find any in the bill, after a fairly careful examination of it; and it is not the first corporation of which I have made a fairly careful examination.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: I now refer the said bill to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
He said: My remarks on moving second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, will be brief. The reasons for that are two in number. First of all, the subject matter of this bill is well known to all hon. members. Indeed, I believe that all political parties represented in the house have expressed themselves as being in favour of the principle involved in this bill. The other reason why I intend to be brief is that it has been suggested a number of times during this session of parliament that when an important measure like this one comes before the house it would seem to be desirable to permit the house to reach a decision on the question. I hope that any others who may feel called upon to speak will follow suit and will be similarly brief, so that second reading of this bill can be voted on tonight.
The bill has just one section and it seeks to achieve just one purpose, namely, to write the voluntary revocable check-off into the

Industrial Relations
national labour code. I may say that the wording of the new subsection 3 which it is proposed to insert in section 6 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which is chapter 54 of the Statutes of 1947-48, is precisely the same as the wording of a subsection 3 of that section which was written into the labour code when that code was before the industrial relations committee of this house in 1948. I want to make it clear that when the bill which became the labour code went to that committee in 1948 it did not have this clause in it. But it was inserted therein by the committee. The original wording was in a form proposed by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). Later the legal advisers of the Department of Labour redrafted the wording which had been submitted by the hon. member for Spadina in the form in which it now appears in my bill. Not one jot or tittle has been changed in the form or the wording of this provision as it was passed by the industrial relations committee of this house in June of 1948.
When the bill came back into the house and was dealt with in committee of the whole house on June 17, 1948, this subclause 3 of clause 6 of the bill was deleted by a vote of the house on the motion of a private member, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Little). It was not long after that, however, until there was held in this city the convention of the Liberal party; and amongst the various planks adopted by that party was its plank No. 10 under the general heading "Recognized Place of Labour in the Community". That plank had several subplanks and included in subplank (d) was a clear-cut proposal for union security.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the minimum form of union security. All that this bill asks for is that when a trade union that has been certified under the labour code asks for the check-off, it shall be granted, and even then with certain limitations. In the main the limitations are two in number. Trade union dues can be deducted, even after a certified union asks for it, only for the employees that request it in writing. The other qualification is that even after an employee has requested the deduction of his union dues, and has done so in writing, he may by subsequent request in writing revoke the former request and thus have his dues no longer deducted. That is the meaning of the phrase in the title, "voluntary revocable check-off".
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is the minimum form of union security. One might ask for more, but this is the least one might ask for, especially from a party which, after the vote on June 17, 1948, in this house, held a convention at which it went on record as

being in favour of union security. I have before me clippings that indicate support of the same principle by the Progressive Conservative party. I believe that the members of the Social Credit group support that principle as well. The trade union groups in this country are most anxious for it, and I feel it would be well if the house reached a decision on the matter tonight.
One of the objections that were raised the last time a bill of this nature was presented to the house-that was in the last parliament, and we are in a new parliament now, with many new members-was that the labour code had 'been drafted as the result of considerable consultation with the interested parties. It was suggested on a former occasion that it hardly seemed proper to make any changes in that code without going through the same process, without consulting again all those who had been consulted before the original draft had been made. Well, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime we have had the experience this year of some rather sweeping changes being made in the Unemployment Insurance Act. It used to be said to us that we should not ask for changes in that act because it was the product of consultation with all the interested parties, and it should not be changed without consulting them again. Well, those interested parties were not consulted when this government felt that these changes should be made, and I suggest that that argument has gone by the board.


Mr. Miichell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my hon, friend said that nobody had been consulted. He must know-if he does not know he should

that we have various advisers to the minister across the dominion-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister can raise a point of order, but he can hardly speak on the bill at this time.


Humphrey Mitchell: This is the House of Commons, and not a street corner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister is not speaking to a point of order; he is speaking in the debate.


Humphrey Mitchell: I raised a point of order. We have various committees across the country in the different provinces who are advisory and we also have a national advisory committee composed of employers and employees on the unemployment insurance commission. What you get is a joint representation. Everybody does not get his own way. That is logical in a democracy. When you do get everything all your own way it is a dictatorship, of course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is the point of order?


Humphrey Mitchell: Wait a minute. This Unemployment Insurance Act is the by-product of consultation with representatives of those various organizations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that very few members in the house will And it possible to see that that was a point of order. At any rate, we have heard the minister's argument. We had the same things said when that debate was before us. In the minister's absence it was made quite clear at that time that many of the changes being made in the act had not been referred to the interested parties. I suggest it is quite well known that-


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order on that. My hon. friend says that when the amending unemployment insurance bill was introduced in this house and debated in the absence of the minister it was made clear that some of the changes had been brought down without any previous consultation. I categorically deny that, and I would ask my hon. friend to refer to the statements of the then Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Martin) and myself on that point.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I think that-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Is that a point of order?


Donald MacInnis: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think you should make sure that the point of order raised by an hon. member is a point of order. Neither the Minister of Labour nor the parliamentary assistant raised a point of order.


Alphonse Fournier: Is the hon. gentleman speaking on a point of order?


Donald MacInnis: A point of order is raised at some stage at which an hon. member is transgressing the rules of debate. Whether he makes a wrong statement or a false statement, it is not a matter on which an hon. member can raise a point of order. You can reply to those statements later when you rise to take part in the debate; so let us have no more of these points of order that are merely arguments in the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is I had intended to be through with my remarks before this. Perhaps I had better not say any more lest I invite further interruptions. My basic contention is that what the house has before it is the exact wording of a proposal that was originally brought into parliament by a Liberal member. It was passed by the labour committee of this house in June of 1948. Its principle has since been endorsed by the Liberal convention, and it
Industrial Relations
is supported by all parties in the house. It is a measure which labour is asking for, and I suggest the house should support this bill by passing the motion for second reading tonight.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: Since I took part in the debate on a similar bill the last time it was before the house I want to say a few words with respect to the present bill on this occasion. This is a proposed amendment to the labour code, which, as a statute of the federal parliament, applies to certain national industries in this country. I believe, Mr. Speaker-and I think this is an opinion that is held by a majority in this house and in the country-that the purpose of labour legislation is to provide an atmosphere in which management and labour can live and work together in a spirit of harmony, and with as little friction as possible, in order to make the industrial life of this country healthy and active.
When this same bill, and other proposed amendments to the labour code, were brought before the house on two previous occasions I took the stand, with other members, that it was too soon after the general revision of the labour code by this parliament seriously to consider amendments which were attacking certain basic principles of the whole legislation. A further time has passed and we may be coming to the stage when it will be necessary for this house and the government to examine the working of the labour code over the whole field, and to assess just how it is working out, and whether or not any changes-be they a part or be they a principle-should be made.
However, Mr. Speaker, I think it is still too soon to attempt to amend this general code in a way which does not agree with the basic principle of that act, and in that way undermine the basic principle without continuing to give a long searching look at the basic principle and deciding whether or not we want to continue to observe that principle.
I also think, Mr. Speaker, that when changes of this kind are suggested it would be advisable for the sponsors to give the house the benefit of a fairly searching review of the situation, to point out to the house just how they think experience has shown that a change of this nature is required, and why they think the particular change they suggest would contribute to the attainment of the basic purpose of labour legislation.
The hon. member who is sponsoring this bill has said that the subject matter has been supported by all the groups in this house, and he bases that statement, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, on the undoubted and firm purpose of that party to see that labour

Industrial Relations
unions in this country achieve the proper measure of security which will make it possible for them to carry out their proper function in our economic life. I disagree with him, however, when he suggests that that necessarily means that this party is in favour of the bill he has proposed. The basic principle of the national labour code, and the principle which, as I understand it, has guided the Liberal party in its approach to labour legislation, both in the past and at the present time, is that the function of labour legislation is to provide machinery whereby employees can organize and form themselves into a union, and whereby they will be given the opportunity and the right to bargain collectively with their employers and to reach an agreement with them, and protect themselves, by provision of legislation, from unfair labour practices and other things of that nature.
That is the basic principle, the basic purpose. But it is not regarded as advisable or wise to attempt by legislation to fix for employees or employers the conditions of labour, rates of pay or other matters of that kind which are regarded as proper subjects for negotiation between the parties. It is certainly my view that, in so far as these things are questions for negotiation between the parties, the soundest and safest situation for labour is to have them remain within their power as subjects for negotiation, as they see fit.
I do not think it would be in the interests of labour at the present time to impose by legislation the principle of this bill. A similar provision exists in labour codes of the various provinces, including my own. Provincial labour legislation has not, as a general rule, observed the same basic principle that has been the underlying principle of federal legislation. The situation in respect of industries and employers coming within the purview of federal legislation is in many cases quite different from that which applies to employers who come within the purview of provincial legislation.
This I regard as a very important question. It is one that should be considered carefully and given a great deal of study. I hope the house will consider it, and that the matter will be studied. If the new members in the house express themselves as being satisfied that these basic principles should be reconsidered, and the whole question gone into with this new approach in mind, then I think we should give consideration to that.
I am not prepared however to support amendment of our labour code in bits and pieces as is suggested by this bill. I therefore propose to vote against it.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this amendment-*


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear; there is at least one Liberal over there.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -I would draw the attention of the house first to the fact that this measure is one which calls for voluntary action on the part of employees, and for a small measure of compulsion where employers are concerned.
The bill before us is one to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and has special reference to the voluntary revocable check-off. As one who has had some experience with open shop conditions in my own province prior to the bringing into force of legislation of this kind, I would have been prepared and willing to sponsor a bill of this kind. It had not occurred to me however that this provision was not almost Canada-wide. Perhaps this arises by virtue of the fact that in British Columbia we have such progressive legislation so far as labour and social provisions are concerned.
I do not intend to take up the time of the house to prove the great necessity for stable labour unions. They are the governing bodies of employees, and take the full responsibility for recommending legislation which will govern the working conditions, wages, holidays and other matters pertaining to labour. These unions must have some measure of security, and I would say that this bill calls for the very minimum of that which, in the usual normal term, could be considered the lowest form of union security.
National, provincial and municipal governments find certain expenditures necessary to carry out their various programs. Yet in many cases if it were not possible to have some measure of compulsion brought to bear to support those governing bodies it would be impossible and impracticable for them to carry on. Therefore it is not improper for us to assume that these labour unions, which are the responsible governing bodies, should also enjoy some measure of security. The one here sought is a very small measure indeed, and if it becomes law will tend toward greater harmony in labour and management relations.
I have in mind an organization in my own community which could not function if it were not for the check-off implemented in its behalf. I refer to the community chest. By the simple procedure of check-off the contributions are deducted by the employers, and as a result this community service is enabled to render invaluable support to each and every social problem developing in that area.

It would be unfortunate indeed if, when the community chest canvassers approached an employee, requesting him to sign one of their cards to support that worth-while project, they found that the union employee was unable to enjoy the same privilege in the matter of payment of union dues. He would therefore be prejudiced against assisting this worthy cause. He would quite correctly feel that here was a measure of discrimination. I have not heard a great deal of argument against this bill, but I had considerable discussion on the question before coming here and perhaps can envisage some of the objections.
One objection is that the government or the Department of Labour does not wish to interfere in labour-management relations. They assume that the two groups should come together on a bargaining basis free of every form of compulsion. However, if we review the act we find that there is a measure of compulsion in it. Once a union has gained certification the two parties must come together to reach an agreement. It is quite conceivable that having reached that position a union could force an employer to negotiate without compulsory legislation also. I do not think we should single out one item that will lend the union a small measure of security.
There is on the statute books other legislation which exercises a form of compulsion in what is commonly known as the free system of buying and selling. Labour has nothing but its labour to sell, but the farmer has his wheat, butter, eggs and so on to dispose of. On many occasions in the past there has been a measure of interference with free trade between the producer of farm products and the consumer. Only recently the price of wheat for the next crop year was set by the government of Canada. Most certainly a precedent has been set. I think this matter should come to a vote and I shall not take up any more time of the house.


Paul-Émile Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the remarks of hon. members on this particular subject, which is of great importance in the field of labour. At the outset I wish to associate myself with the three hon. members who have expressed a desire to see a greater measure of trade union security in Canada. With them, I hope that all levels of government will contribute in any way possible to promoting the development of union security.
Where I disagree with the hon. member who has moved this motion is on the ways and means of promoting that union security. This happens quite often in connection with government policy. In the ten years I have
Industrial Relations
been here I have found that very often all groups in the house will agree on the underlying principle of a measure, the only disagreement being when the process of implementation is being discussed. I go along with the sponsor of this bill to the extent that it is an expression of earnest and sincere desire to contribute toward obtaining for trade unionism in this country a greater measure of security.
If one views the economic history of this country in the past decade or two one will recognize that organized labour has been a factor of importance, an indispensable factor in the development of our industrial and economic life. One has only to realize that ten years ago, in 1939, the membership of organized labour in Canada was roughly
358.000.	That membership increased constantly until it reached 461,000 in 1941, a peak in Canadian history. In 1942 it had increased to 578,000, another peak. In 1943 the membership was 664,000; in 1944, 724,000; in 1945, the year the war ended and when there was a certain amount of stabilization, the total went slightly down to 711,000. It increased again in 1946 by over 100,000 to reach a total of
831.000.	The latest official figure I have is for 1948 and shows a total of 977,594 members in 5,114 branches of organized labour.
Let us compare the growth of trade unionism with the development in certain lines of production in Canada. If one makes this comparison one will realize that there is more than a coincidence in the growth of organized labour and certain lines of production in Canada. In 1939 our mineral production for instance was valued at $474 million. I shall not give the figures for the intervening years, but in 1947 this production reached a value of $619 million. The gross value of manufacturing production in 1939 was $3,479 million, and in 1946, the last figure I have, it had increased to $8,000 million.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Would the parliamentary assistant permit me one question? I am worried about only one thing. Suppose I am a union member and an employee of a boss, be it a corporation or otherwise. I am earning money; I have money coming in. I give that boss an assignment of $4 a month, which is the amount in the coal business, payable to the union secretary. I give him a simple assignment. Under our present law what possible right has the employer got not to honour the assignment which I have given? Why do we need any more law?


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: I have not reached a discussion of the particular point involved in the bill, but I may say to my hon. friend that my view is that this and any other measure of union security should be a
,1788

Industrial Relations
term and condition to be submitted to collective bargaining, and should be made part of the collective agreement between the employer on the one side and the union on the other.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I would be
inclined to agree with you, but how can an employer refuse to pay? The voluntary checkoff is nothing but an assignment of moneys which are mine. I have earned them. How can an employer refuse to honour that assignment?


Paul-Émile Côté: I fully agree with the thought my friend has in mind, but this is a free country, and when you leave things to the free enterprise or free will of any one man you are liable to meet situations which are not understandable.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Sue him; make him pay.


Paul-Émile Côté: I cannot see why an employer should not agree to discuss any phase of union security with the union. That is my own personal view. So far as this measure is concerned, I consider the labour code is not the place to insert a provision for union security. The labour code is entirely and exclusively a measure to provide for conciliation machinery.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was not being critical. I was just asking if you knew the answer to my question.


Paul-Émile Côté: That is the position I wish to make clear as to this matter. I am not opposing union security, but I say this is surely not the place for it to be introduced and to be made an act of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Paul-Émile Côté: From the rapid review which I have made of the development of trade unions in Canada, one will readily see that the greatest progress has taken place under the auspices of federal legislation in matters of labour relations. It was with the outbreak of the war that Canadian trade unions really went places, if I may use that expression. It was at a time when under the War Measures Act the central authority was vested with practically all jurisdiction in the field of labour legislation. During the war period and the two years immediately following, labour relations in Canada were regulated by the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and also, after February, 1944, by the wartime labour relations regulations known as P.C. 1003. Since September, 1948,

roughly a year and a half ago, the present labour code, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, has been the statute regulating labour relations in matters falling under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act and P.C. 1003 provided valuable jurisprudence in matters of labour relations and acted as a model for the present labour code. As the house knows, the present labour code was not drafted, presented to the house and passed in a short time. It took over two years before all the processes which were followed were completed. Before the first draft was presented to the house in 1947 as Bill 338 the suggestions of all interested bodies and of the provincial governments were sought and taken into consideration for the purpose of improving the initial draft. Only after that first stage was the bill introduced and referred to the standing committee on labour relations during the session of 1947. In the course of the meetings of the committee written representations were received from a great number of responsible organizations across the country and several of them even sent representatives to appear before the committee. I need only refer to the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees, the amalgamated unions, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Construction Association. They presented their views and at the end of the session a report was made to the house that the committee should be reconvened in the following session, and that the same terms of reference be given to it.
In 1948, after having studied further written representations, the committee proceeded to examine the bill clause by clause and finally made a report recommending it to the consideration of the house. Therefore the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act has been given most careful study. Time, effort and consideration have been expended on it with the result that we now have a model act which has inspired most of the provincial legislation on similar matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply,
Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
48. Departmental administration, $90,620.
Mr. Harris (Danforth):: 
Mr. Matthews:: I did not intend to speak tonight, and I shall not take time to discuss immigration generally; I may have an opportunity of doing that later on. First of all, I want to congratulate our new minister of immigration on the fine presentation he gave us today on the immigration situation as it faces Canada. To me that presentation indicates still more clearly the fact that he is the right man in the right place. I have known a good many men by the same name, Harris, and they were all good fellows. We have all listened with a good deal of interest to the address by his namesake across the corridor this evening. I must take exception to one of his remarks. If I understood him correctly I think he laid claim to the fact that he is the youngest member of the House of Commons.


Joseph Henry Harris: No, that was twenty-five years ago.


James Ewen Matthews: Now, sir, I want to make special reference tonight to immigration of refugees coming here under the mandate of the international refugee organization. Perhaps it may be of greater interest if I say that most of my remarks will be based upon personal observation when overseas a few months ago, when I had the pleasure of visiting one of these displaced persons camps. I went there, as some of you know, as representative of the Canadian government to attend a. convention of the international labour organization at Geneva.
May I digress here just for a minute or so to express the high regard my wife and I entertained for the various officials we found in various capacities and in various centres overseas. Their keen sense of responsibility, their abounding courtesy, their personal kindness compel me to make this public acknowledgment. I assure you I do so with pleasure and without any reservation.
The international refugee organization cooperates, as far as Canada is concerned, with the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Labour, and so forth. I want to concentrate on that phase of immigration for several reasons: First because I am convinced that many people are unaware of the great work, the important work, the humane work accomplished by the IRO in transporting refugees to Canada, to the United States and to other countries.
Then there is another reason. After the close of world war II, committees from various nations found themselves appalled by the.


serious condition of millions of displaced persons. Canada then played an important part -perhaps I may say a leading part-in urging the creation of a definite organization to handle the situation in some effective way. The United Kingdom and the United States were in complete agreement in pressing for what came to be known as IRO. Its constitution was signed by the Canadian government, and the Canadian parliament ratified the signature. Furthermore, the record shows that the resolution was adopted by a committee of united nations under the chairmanship of my good friend and fellow Canadian, Senator Turgeon of Vancouver. He also took a very active part in framing the constitution. It should also be kept in mind that the Canadian taxpayer is paying his share toward the financial upkeep of the IRO, and he is therefore entitled to know what is being done with his money.
These are some of the reasons why I deem it fitting to make known to the Canadian people, and to this parliament, the impressions I formed from actual observation of IRO activities.
I referred a minute ago to millions of displaced persons. During the war many of those people were forced to leave their homes, go into Germany and work as forced labour in German fields and factories. At the end of the war the allied armies liberated actually millions of them from concentration and labour camps in Germany. They were found to be from every country in Europe and represented almost every walk of life.
We are told that in the months immediately following the German surrender many highways in Europe were literally clogged with masses of refugees trekking back to their homes. By train, by truck and on foot, they wended their way back. What did they find when they got there? Those seven million people and more found their homes were no longer there. Their homes had been destroyed. Their livestock had been driven away; their farming implements were no more. They had the land, but nothing else. There they were like animals turned out into the fields to live or die. No doubt many of them in their despair would have preferred death. It was clear that something had to be done, and done quickly, if their lives were to be saved. I suggest that the practical efforts applied to the solution of that problem will go down in history as a lasting tribute to the Christian virtues of the United Nations.
But there was still another problem. Besides those seven or eight millions who had returned to their countries of origin there were another 1,600,000 refugees who

had to receive some other form of international assistance if their lives were to be saved. Many of them were still in Germany, some in Austria, some in Italy and other smaller countries. To re-establish those
1,600,000	was a hopeless task for any one nation to undertake. So, once again, United Nations got under the load.
Under the sponsorship of its general assembly a preparatory commission was set up which operated for over a year, until IRO could be constitutionally formed. This was completed on August 20, 1948. Under the terms of its constitution IRO became responsible-mark you, because responsible- for those 1,600,000 displaced persons, displaced from home and friends and thrown completely upon the charity of the allies.
Let me make it clear that there are seventeen countries who are members of IRO. Those countries pay the operating costs on an assessment basis. Canada's share is about $6 million per year. In other words IRO, although in a sense part and parcel of United Nations, is financed by the seventeen member countries, quite independent of United Nations funds. The head offices of IRO are in Geneva. That fact added to my interest in the organization, for during our two and a half weeks in Geneva I visited those offices several times. On each occasion I was profoundly impressed with the atmosphere of alertness, efficiency and sincerity that was everywhere manifest. The director general directs from the Geneva office an international staff of practically 2,500 persons, representing thirty-eight different nationalities, and assigned to twenty-six different countries. Among them are a good many Canadians, and those of them whom I met are mighty fine Canadians. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that I have now made fairly clear the creation of the IRO, as I found it, and that some idea of its work may be unfolded as I continue.
Hon. members will understand more clearly my interest in this question when I tell them that one of the highlights of our trip overseas was the greater part of an afternoon spent in a displaced persons camp during our days in Germany. We were in the city of Karlsruhe, where Canada has a most active branch office in the American zone. Karlsruhe, like many other cities through which we passed in Germany, carries the scars of war to a very marked degree. The IRO staff there is composed almost wholly of Canadians, and a more cordial, co-operative, efficient and friendly group it has never been my privilege to meet. We drove from Karlsruhe probably forty miles to this displaced persons camp, formerly a large German barracks, a formidable type of structure look-
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration ing well its part. It is what is called an assembly camp. It is recruited from some 58 or 60 minor camps quite a distance farther eastward. There I was able to grasp at first hand something of IRO activity, and still more of the responsibilities those officials were carrying.
On the day of our visit there were present 2,145 refugees, men, women and children, in the last stages of preparedness for transport across the Atlantic. A few were still being X-rayed, but the screening in general had been completed. One trainload was due to leave next day for Bremen, thence to New York, and another the following day to Montreal. I talked with several of the men, most of whom were Polish or Ukrainian, and some of whom could speak English. Reference to their homeland brought only a look of despair, but when one mentioned Canada their faces beamed.
I shall not take the time this evening to discuss immigration in general, because I may have an opportunity to do so later. May. I say I am quite in accord with some of the remarks made before six o'clock by the leader of the opposition. However, if some of those remarks were intended to apply to displaced persons camps-and I am not sure that they were-then I would have to say that those remarks were not all in accordance with the facts. I speak from my own personal observations. There are two or three points he made with which I would be compelled to take issue respectfully and perhaps reluctantly.
I would say that everything humanly possible is being done to make their stay over there comfortable, and their trip across the ocean pleasant. I confirmed that opinion by personal discussion with some of them on board ship during our return from the old land. Every effort is being made to take care of them there, to take care of them on the ship, and to see that they are carefully placed after they are landed. I am sure they appreciate it. I am very happy therefore that these people are assured of a friendly welcome upon arrival here. Why should they not be? Throughout Canada, and particularly in western Canada, those who came to us from European countries forty or fifty years ago proved valuable assets to this country. They entered upon manual labour of the hardest kind, very often such as was refused by our native-born Canadians. They took up land in rough, unsettled areas, thought by some to be valueless; but before long those crude surroundings reached the stage when "creaking wagons bore the harvest home and well-filled barns laughed with their golden plenty".
1794	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
Today a great many of those farm homes are among the most desirable in western Canada. The sons and daughters are making progress in all branches of Canadian life, not only on the farms but in business, professional and public life as well. In fact, in the province of Manitoba there are five members, either of European birth or ancestry, in the provincial legislature. I have no hesitation in saying that Canada is a richer country today because of that immigration years ago; and it will be richer still as a result of this new flow of immigration coming to pur shores.
In one of the rooms we visited at the camp an elderly woman, intelligent and neat in appearance, was being instructed in languages by a younger one. It was explained to us that this woman was waiting and longing for the day when a certain technicality would have been overcome and she could join her friends in Canada. When about to leave I stepped across the room, shook hands with her and said as distinctly as I could, "I hope you will soon be in Canada". Whether it was the word "Canada" or just the little gesture of good will, I do not know, but the expression of gratitude shining through the tears that started coursing down that lonely woman's cheeks is something I shall not forget. Yes, an extra touch of kindness bestowed upon these people who come to us will make of them better Canadians and in a shorter time.
I can assure the committee that the afternoon spent in that camp was to us an enlightening and worth-while experience.
I wish very bluntly to ask my fellow Canadians, both in this chamber and outside it, this pointed question: If as a result of war in Canada you had lost your homes and all you had, everything taken over by an enemy, many of your loved ones gone, if you were compelled to seek refuge in a European country, compelled to begin life all over again in a land you had never known, under conditions you had never experienced, among people you had never seen, addressed in a language you had never heard, in your despair hoping for the bread of kindness, just what would your feelings be; what would be your reaction? Just think that over for a while. I suggest that with the war clouds not yet cleared away, this is no time for any of us to adopt a complex of superiority or selfishness. At present there are two of these assembly camps in the French zone, six in the American zone and four in the British zone.
I should like to mention some of the general features noticeable around those displaced persons' camps. Notwithstanding, the number transferred to other lands, there were


still living in or near those camps as of March 1, 1950, a total of 305,407 persons. They included 105,000 Poles, 42,000 Ukrainians and
19.000	Yugoslavs. You ask: How do those
305.000	people manage to live? Well, it is pretty tough. Let us realize that they are maintaining their morale today only by the hope of migrating soon to some other country to begin life all over again.
Those people of various nationalities, various cultures, various degrees of education, have learned to live together in harmony. Everywhere they are reported to be governing themselves along the democratic lines of the countries in which they wish to resettle. A number of them earn a scant living by taking up work of different kinds, some as farmers, some as road builders, some as professional men and some as artisans. Many of them are doing work far below their qualifications. The women appeared to be busy at knitting, sewing and embroidery, and apparently all are of a thrifty type. Educational facilities have been made available for both children and adults. Moving pictures of Canada are shown and informative discussions concerning Canada are held. Lectures are given on various topics, educational and otherwise, for there is no lack of experts in almost every field.
May I emphasize here that many of those displaced persons although lacking in financial assets are well educated and capable in other ways. It is stated that in Latvia and Estonia, the original homelands of many displaced persons, practically the same percentage of the population attended university as in Canada, and that in 1939 there was approximately the same number of students at the university of Riga as at the university of Toronto. No, they cannot be classed as an illiterate -people, not by any means.
From what I could see and learn I would suggest that now with the rush of immigration lessening to some extent the age of admissibility to Canada, now limited at 45 years, should be raised to age 50 at least. I would suggest also that the time has arrived when there should be more elasticity when one member of a family is found to be physically handicapped. To have a family barred from coming to Canada or broken up, to have some little one left behind in Europe, because it is not as strong as the others, seems to me rather harsh today, even if it were justified two or three years ago. Then again, permission for widows with one or more children, according to conditions, should be widened to the extent that each case be studied on its own merits.
I suggest this because I have confidence in the judgment of the men right on the ground

to make the proper selections. I have confidence in the screening, or security officers as they are called. I talked with two of them and could catch something of their difficulties. They have a tough job. They make every effort to be fair. It is not their wish to bar any worthy person nor do they want to admit the unworthy. Despite every precaution they will make an occasional mistake. That cannot be avoided. We are bound to get some misfits, but I ask whether there are any misfits among our own people.
We must also endeavour, so far as is reasonably possible, to keep down to a minimum that "hard core," as it is sometimes called, meaning the handicapped element. Norway has recently agreed to accept and care for one hundred of the blind among those unfortunates; Belgium 227 of the aged, now growing infirm; and Sweden 150 of those who
Area
-uiueio.
nations should lend a hand. I am informed that IRO has a $22 million fund in the budget to pay part of the cost of permanent care to countries willing to accept some of those hard core cases.
It is to the credit of Canada, and I say it with pride, that ours was the first country to accept displaced persons from overseas. We began with fifty-four, who sailed for Canada on the Aquitania on April 4, 1947, and since then Canada's record compares favourably with that of any other country. From that time there has been a total of 43,000 workers brought to Canada under the arrangements made by the interdepartmental immigration committee. This is the break-down:	for
domestic service approximately 10,400; for farms, 13,289; heavy labour, 19,000; and for nursing, interneship and professional service, 300. In addition to the 43,000 workers there were 3,388 wives or children of those workers who came along with them. In addition to those 46,388, there were over 55,000 wives and children of workers who had been left in d.p. camps and who were brought out after the workers became established. Some others were relatives or close connections of those already here. Canada has actually brought across 101,388 refugees to date. Here I should point out that Canada agreed in the first place to accept only five thousand displaced persons, but as you will note we have exceeded that number twenty times over.
There are those who say that because of our housing shortage immigration should not be encouraged. In that connection someone has made the apt remark that the greatest housing shortage this country has ever known was the day Jacques Cartier landed on the shores of Gaspe. Others claim we have all the population now we can assimilate. If I
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration remember correctly a somewhat similar claim was made long years ago by the Hudson's Bay Company. Those coming into western or northern Canada at that time to embark upon other activities were mostly regarded as aliens, intruding upon the supposedly sacred precincts of the fur industry. I take it we have far outgrown a mental attitude of that kind, particularly when we stop to consider that Canada's land area is greater even than that of the United States and Alaska, and comprises 28 per cent of the land area of the British commonwealth. Ever since the days when -the fur industry reigned supreme in western and northern Canada increased population and increased production have gone forward hand in hand in the development and the enrichment of Canada. Would any process of depopulation and decreased production spell any greater, or as great, prosperity for our people? The answer is obvious.
The IRO was supposed to discontinue operations on June 30 next, but it is pleasing to note that the time has been extended by United Nations up to March 31, 1951. After that date further arrangements will go into effect. I have taken longer than I would have wished in discussing the set-up and work of the IRO, but I feel that it is information to which Canadians are entitled, and which they will be glad to receive. I hope to have something to say at a later date on the subject of general immigration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion may I point this out, that in the setting up of an organization to this end, in the adjusting of a thousand details and difficulties never even thought of by the general public, in the securing of an efficient and sympathetic personnel in many different centres, the fact of transportation congestion resulting from the huge number of returned men and women, who were so gladly brought back to Canada and re-absorbed into our economy, in placing those refugees at work when they arrived in Canada and in attaining the phenomenal results expressed in the figures I have just quoted, I am sure every thoughtful person will agree that the Department of Labour is entitled to sincere congratulations and the highest praise. A writer remarked not long ago that the achievement of bringing those refugees here in the face of the many difficulties that had to be overcome is as remarkable a performance as anything to be found in the history of immigration to Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have already had the privilege of extending my congratulations to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) upon his appointment to this portfolio and I am glad to have this opportunity of repeating that expression of good will. One
1798	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration of the reasons why I am glad to see the hon. member in charge of this department is that I believe he is a person who is very much against discrimination. It is to that quality in him that I should now like to make an appeal. My appeal relates to the plea for the repeal of order in council P.C. 2115 of September 30, 1930, which has to do with the immigration of Chinese to this country.
As the minister knows, for quite a number of years Chinese immigration to Canada was governed by a portion of the Immigration Act which was known as the Chinese Immigration Act. The act was referred to by people in China as the Chinese exclusion act, and two or three years ago the hon. member for Spadina said that Chinese people in Canada referred to it as the Chinese extermination act.
It is good to know that the Chinese Immigration Act has been repealed. That was done by parliament in 1947. It was made clear at that time, however, in the course of the debate on the bill which abolished the Chinese Immigration Act, that there was still a bit more of the job to do. Not long since a delegation of Chinese and other citizens waited upon the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and placed a brief in his hands asking for the repeal of order in council P.C. 2115. May I remind the minister and the committee that just before the session at which the Chinese Immigration Act was repealed there was a press release indicating that that was going to be done, and that discrimination against Chinese on racial grounds would be ended. That press release was issued by the then prime minister, Mr. King, on January 27, 1947, and read in part as follows:
Mr. King said that, at an early stage of the session,-
The reference was to the session of 1947.
-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 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.
As the minister knows, the portion of that last sentence which caught the attention of the Chinese people in this country and others interested in this matter and encouraged them was the first part which read:
The effect of the repeal will be to remove all discrimination against the Chinese on account of race-
The sentence went on to add the further words that I have given. At the time most


people did not feel there was any particular significance to the rest of it, but it turned out that there was. The rest of the sentence read:
-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.
That sounded fine, but I shall point to the flaw in it shortly. First, I want to indicate that there were three orders in council that are a part of this story. There is order in council P.C. 695 which is the general order in council respecting immigration and which may have had certain amendments. Then there is order in council P.C. 2115 of September 30, 1930, which provided that no Asiatics were to be permitted to bring their wives or other members of their families into Canada unless the person in Canada was himself a citizen. P.C. 2115, however, did not apply to Chinese people so long as the Chinese Immigration Act was on the statute books. The relevant paragraphs of P.C. 2115 read as follows:
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 the wife or unmarried child under eighteen years of age, of any Canadian citizen legally admitted to and resident in Canada, who is in a position to receive and care for his dependents.
The next paragraph was of particular significance so long as the Chinese Immigration Act was in force. It read:
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.
It is clear from the sense of the last sentence that so long as there was in effect a special Chinese immigration law governing these people P.C. 2115 did not apply to them, but once the Chinese Immigration Act was repealed by parliament in 1947 it automatically put the Chinese under the provisions of P.C. 2115.
Here was, if I may call it that, the joker in the press release made by Mr. King. He had said that once these changes were made all discrimination against the Chinese on account of race would be removed, but that was not the whole of the sentence. In the rest of the sentence he said that Chinese persons would be brought under the general provisions of the Immigration Act and no longer under legislation applying exclusively to persons of Chinese origin. We took that at its face value, thinking that Chinese persons

would be brought under the general provisions of the Immigration Act, but "With the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act we [DOT]discovered that they came automatically under P.C. 2115, the order in council which denies to any Asiatic the right to bring members of his family to Canada unless he, the person in Canada, is already a citizen.
How did Mr. King square his announcement with what ensued? It was squared by the last words of his sentence in which he said they would no longer be under legislation applying exclusively to persons of Chinese origin. Certainly they are not now under legislation applying exclusively to persons of Chinese origin as was the case when they were under the Chinese Immigration Act, but they are now under regulations that apply to people of Asiatic origin. They are almost no better off. As I say, it was a bit of a joker, and the minister knows just as well as I do that it has been a very sore point not only with the Chinese people of Canada, who discovered that discrimination against them on account of race was not ended, but also with religious bodies, trade union organizations and thousands of Canadian citizens whose feeling toward these matters is so essentially sound that, like the minister, we do not want discrimination on account of race.
There was one other order in council that related to this matter, namely, P. C. 1378 of June 17, 1931. It was a further piece of discrimination in that it required the Chinese people, before they could come to Canada, to have the approval of the minister of interior of the Chinese government. I am glad to say that that order in council was repealed about the same time that the Chinese Immigration Act was repealed. Now, the government has done well in the steps it has taken. It has repealed, by a subsequent order in council, order in council P. C. 1378. The government also got parliament to repeal the Chinese Immigration Act. My request is that they go this further step and repeal P. C. 2115, and put the Chinese under the provisions of the general immigration regulations that are set out in P. C. 695.
The particular point about P. C. 2115, as it applies to the Chinese, is this. Whereas a person who has come here from Europe can bring his wife and relatives to this country, even though he is not yet a citizen, that right is denied to a Chinese person who is here. The denial is clearly on the basis of race. When one realizes the disabilities under which these people have been for many years, one can understand why some of these Chinese have not become citizens of this country. The order goes a bit further than that, and the
21. 1950	1797
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) referred to it this afternoon. Even if a person of Chinese origin in this country, now a Canadian citizen, wishes to bring his wife and children from China, he finds he can do it only with respect to his wife and the children who are under eighteen years of age. I do not need to continue to emphasize the unfairness of it, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the minister who has come into charge of this department, and has to deal with it, feels just as badly in his heart about it as I do. I simply want him to know that the people of Canada feel that way about it too. He will be doing what the people of this country want, if he removes from our immigration regulations this discriminatory rule that is involved in P. C. 2115. It is one of the worst forms of discrimination, discrimination on the basis of race; there is no room for that in Canada.
After the matter had been brought to light in the debates that took place in this house in 1947, debates which were rather heated at times because some of us felt that, to use the words of my leader, a cruel hoax had been perpetrated, as a result of those debates and the way in which the continuing racial discrimination against the Chinese was brought out, the matter came up for discussion in the other place the following year. In fact, the whole matter was referred to the standing committee on immigration and labour of the Senate. On Wednesday, March 10, 1948, a group of witnesses appeared before that Senate committee to make a plea for the repeal of P. C. 2115. I hold in my hands a record of that day's proceedings of that committee, and according to the minutes of the proceedings the final results were as follows:
On motion of the Hon. Senator, Murdock, seconded by the Hon. Senator Bouchard, it was resolved that in the report of the committee a recommendation be included for the repeal of order in council P.C. 2115 respecting the admittance to Canada of wives and children of men of Chinese descent now resident in Canada.
When one reads the minutes of evidence in detail, he discovers that when the motion was carried the Hon. Senator Euler made the remark that it was carried unanimously. In that instance, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. senators who were on that committee were reflecting the views of the people of Canada. During the course of the discussion questions were asked which made it clear that the Chinese people were not asking for the gates to be opened wide. They made it clear that the total number who would come in after the repeal of P.C. 2115 would be very few. So far as I am concerned I feel that we Canadians who value our principles, and who like to think we are non-discriminatory, should be more concerned about this than
1798	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs the Chinese who are denied the right to bring their wives and children to Canada. They suffer from this wrong; we are ashamed of it.
As I have already said, it is not long since a delegation came to Ottawa and waited upon the minister. I understood from the delegates that he received them most sympathetically and most kindly, and I know that he would. Later that day the delegation entertained a number of us at a most enjoyable Chinese dinner at the Cathay restaurant. I am looking to see whether any of the members who were present on that occasion are in the house tonight. I thought they would be here when this matter came up. Certainly the members who were there that night, the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing), the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gauthier) and the member for St. Paul's (Mr. Rooney), along with myself, to name a few who made speeches when called upon, promised they would back up the representations the delegation had made. I am sorry that those members who were there are not here tonight to say something on the floor of this house. I am sure they meant what they said, and I believe the minister knows the feelings of the Canadian people about this matter. I do hope that it will not be long now until the government removes this discriminatory provision from our immigration regulations.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, the discussion which has taken place so far-


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Chairman, would the member mind if I interrupted for a moment? I saw the leaders of the different parties, and asked them if they would object if we asked that this item be allowed to stand so that we might take up veterans affairs. My colleague the minister has to leave in a few minutes, so if my good friend could postpone his speech until the next time-


Edmund Davie Fulton: When will the next time be?


Alphonse Fournier: As soon as possible.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
528. Departmental administration, $2,175,279.
George Randolph Pearkes: Does the minister wish to make a statement at this time?


Mr. Gregg:: Not at this time. I should prefer, if the house agrees, to make the remainder of the hour available for any hon. member who might wish to bring up a matter under general administration.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity of bringing up a few matters concerning the Department of Veterans


Affairs, its general administration, and matters whfch affect the ex-servicemen of this country. I welcome the opportunity particularly this evening, because this week end sees the anniversary of the baptism of fire of a great many Canadian veterans who took part in the first world war, and who were members of the first thirty thousand troops to leave Canada. Those men set a standard of service for this country which succeeding contingents, both in the first and in the second world war, did their best to live up to. It is, therefore, a pleasure for me today to find that there is an opportunity of expressing in this house, in very inadequate words, the deep gratitude which Canada owes to that first contingent in the first great war.
There had, of course, been Canadians going overseas to the South African war previous to that. But during the early months, and particularly during April of 1915, the great bulk of the men who had left Canada with the first contingent came into action and brought everlasting honour to themselves when they stemmed the German advance at the second battle of Ypres and suffered all the horrors and hardships of what is so frequently referred to as the first gas attack. The men who had fought through those battles, the men who had set that example for other Canadians who followed in their footsteps, are the type of men we are considering today when this country is providing, and providing generously, for their well-being and for the care of those who are still suffering from wounds, and the dependents of those men and those who followed after them, trying to live up to the example of that first contingent of world war I.
When we come to examine the funds which are being provided for the welfare of these men, and for their rehabilitation into civilian life, I think everyone will agree that succeeding governments have endeavoured to follow the wish of the people of Canada to deal generously with their returned men. It is quite immaterial what party happens to be in power. I think it has become the practice of governments in this age to follow the wishes of the people of the country. They are in a position, by means of their civil service which is established all across the land, and by the contact which members of the House of Commons are able to obtain with their constituents, to size up accurately what is the opinion of the country on any particular point. The governments have been able to assess with a considerable degree of accuracy the wishes of the Canadian people with respect to their veterans, so frequently expressed, namely, that the veterans should

be dealt with generously and that, provided that the general economy of the country is not adversely affected, every possible assistance should be given to the returned men of this land. I therefore feel that the governments, since the first great war, have been following the wishes of the people rather than leading the nation, along the line of generous treatment to the veterans of Canada.
However, in spite of the fact that the country is anxious to deal generously, the country is not in a position to be extravagant even with regard to its treatment of the exservicemen. It is therefore the duty of members of parliament to examine the estimates as they are presented, to see whether there is any undue extravagance, and whether the dollars which are being provided by the people are being spent in the best interests of the veterans. As every hon. member of this house knows, in the past the members of all parties were given an opportunity of assisting the government in making certain that the money allocated for the welfare of the veterans was spent to the best advantage. Members from all parties were called together in the committee on veterans affairs -of bygone days, I regret to say-and there they were able to offer their advice to the minister and his assistant. They were able to call before them the officers of the department. They were able to call representative groups of 'the veterans before the committee so that the wants of the different types of veterans might be explained at first hand to the members. The problems of the department were discussed and decisions were reached in that committee so that sound recommendations might be made to the government of the particular day.
I believe there is no matter of greater urgency today than the setting up of a similar committee so that they may examine the estimates of this department; so that they may hear the evidence presented by the various organizations; and so that they may discuss with the officials of the department not only what measures may be taken for the further assistance of the veterans of this land but also may examine the situation and see whether it is not possible to effect economies in the administration of the department.
When one takes just a casual glance at the estimates as presented in this blue book, the very first item that one sees is "general administration"; and under the heading of "general administration" one notices that, this year, $18,255 more than was required for the general administration last year is being asked for by the minister. I have
Supply-Veterans Affairs no doubt that, when questioned here in committee, the minister will be able to give reasons why there should be an increase in the general administration of his departmental headquarters. At the same time it is significant that there should be an increase in the headquarters item when we heard only yesterday, in another discussion, that the policy, as far as the war veterans allowance board is concerned, is to decentralize to district administration. Yet we find that in district administration they have been able to effect a reduction or a saving in the estimates this year over those of last year of $93,017. If savings can be effected in the districts where the district administration is in the closest touch with the bulk of the returned men in the country, one is forced to ask why a similar or even a greater saving cannot be made in the general administration
rtf tVir* rJnrtovVmrtntol Vtoarlrmartorc HXfVixr r*ow_
not a saving be made instead of there being an increase? This is just one of the type of questions which might be investigated in a committee specially assembled to inquire into veterans affairs.
It must be embarrassing at times for a minister to have to effect economies in a department where there is such an urgent desire on the part of so many people, and so many members of this house, to obtain greater benefits for their old comrades. I am not at all sure that a committee might not be of very considerable assistance to the minister. That is only one matter which might well be referred to a committee.
There are many other matters dealing with veterans' welfare which require the most careful consideration at the present time. We know that it is necessary to introduce certain amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. Reference was made to that in the speech from the throne. Yesterday a resolution was introduced in the house dealing with some of the improvements which are considered necessary, but there are other adjustments which might be made to the War Veterans Allowance Act other than merely granting to ex-imperial soldiers and others who had served in forces other than Canadian forces in the war the benefits of that act.
Many representations have been made that the basic allowance should be increased. Many representations have been made that other groups of veterans should also be made eligible for that allowance. Many representations have been made for the removal of the so-called means test in connection with the War Veterans Allowance Act.
Earlier this week a discussion was held on another matter which has been long outstanding as far as a certain group of veterans are
1800	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs concerned, namely, granting clear titles to the old soldiers who took up land under the soldier settlement board. The debate on that subject was adjourned. I suggest that there would have been no need to adjourn the debate on that subject had it been possible to discuss it again before a suitable committee, because it had been discussed a couple of years ago.
Another point which is exercising the minds of many people who are closely connected with the returned men of this country is the necessity of stabilizing the pension. When there was a committee on veterans affairs that committee recommended to the government-and the recommendation was accepted -that the pensions of veterans of world war I should be stabilized after a period of three years. A great many organizations across the country feel that the time has now come when there should be a general stabilization of pensions of men who' have even served during world war II, and who have been drawing a pension for a certain period of time, let us say three years. After three years, and when it is obvious that their medical condition is not likely to improve, that pension should be stabilized, and they should be given the secure knowledge that they will be able to draw a certain rate of pension for the rest of their lives because of the war disability that they have received. The man who has been wounded, or whose health has been seriously impaired by active service, feels that although he perhaps may be able partially or at times temporarily to regain a measure of his health, yet there is still the aggravation of that wound or that sickness which is a handicap to him, and that as a recompense for all that he has gone through, and to make up for that haunting fear that at some time the old trouble may recur, he should be entitled to whatever classification of pension was given to him, after a reasonable time has elapsed, and after there has been a period of fixed and steady pension income accruing to him. Therefore I say that that is one of the problems which must be facing the administration today; and I am sure that representations have been made to the minister in the same way as they have been made to me and to other hon. members that the time has come when that matter might well be given consideration.
Earlier in this session-to be precise, on March 13-the minister announced that there had been a change in the regulations affecting the hospitalization of ex-servicemen who
[Mr. Pearkes.l

under the provisions at that time were nor eligible for hospitalization. The words of the minister will be found on page 681 of Hansard of March 13 of this year. He said:
This regulation permits this department to give hospitalization and .treatment to veterans who are ineligible under present regulations, but who are covered as to hospital costs by private or provincial government insurance plans; or who, though not insured, have the means to pay for the treatment for which they may apply at D.V.A. hospitals.
After the minister had made his announcement I was permitted to ask him a question. I asked whether it was the intention that those who are now to have the advantage of hospitalization in the D.V.A. hospitals under this new regulation would be expected to pay their full amount. The minister replied in this way:
As I indicated in my statement, many of the matters related to the question just asked-
And that was in connection with the second part of my question which dealt with the relation of the patient going into the D.V.A. hospital with such provincial hospital scheme as there might be.
-are now being worked out. To answer the hon. member's second question first, under this regulation only those veterans will be accepted who pay the full amount which will be set for that particular hospital.
I cannot help feeling that had more consideration been given to this change in the regulations we should have seen something of a rather different nature. Here we are giving those veterans who have the ability to pay the opportunity of entering D.V.A. hospitals. The question which will have to be decided, as to whether a man who is not eligible under present regulations is to be admitted into a veterans' hospital, is: Will he be able to pay the full amount? I do not believe that that is really the wish of the majority of the people of Canada. I believe there could have been worked out an alternative plan whereby the opportunity to go into our veterans' hospitals would have been given to those ex-servicemen who had not the ability to pay rather than to give it to those who have the ability to pay.
I know we have somehow or other to make both ends meet, I suppose, so far as hospitalization is concerned. 1 know men who are destitute can be admitted into these veterans^ hospitals under what is generally known as the class 5-A scheme. But a man has to be almost destitute to be admitted to a D.V.A. hospital under those conditions.
The conditions as to the requirements in assessing his eligibility to enter a D.V.A. hospital under this 5-A treatment plan are

that his liquid assets and his income have to be assessed. If a veteran has no dependents and has liquid assets not exceeding $250 he may be admitted to a D.V.A. hospital. But I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how long will liquid assets of, let us say, anything over $250 last? Are there not a great many people who will hesitate to take advantage of hospitalization in the fear that they dare not use up all their savings, all their liquid assets, in paying out hospital bills? They would rather suffer at home than go into a hospital where they have to spend their savings to the extent of $250.
If a man has dependent children he is allowed $400 in liquid assets. But, with more than that, he does not become eligible for the class 5 treatment. Then, so far as income is concerned over and above these liquid assets, he is eligible if he has an income of less than $500 a year. If he has an income of more than $500 a year certain deductions are made and certain other restrictions imposed. If his income is between $500 and $900 the cost of the treatment he expects to receive in the veterans' hospital must be at least 5 per cent of his income before he is admitted. And if as a single man his income is over $900 and less than $1,200 his treatment must be assessed at at least 10 per cent of his income.
Surely a scheme could have been devised in which the authorities would have made that hospital accommodation in D.V.A. hospitals available to a larger group of veterans who really cannot afford to pay the full amount of hospitalization, by making an extension of those regulations I have just read out, and making those conditions more flexible by raising what might be called the means test which is required of a veteran before he is eligible for the class 5 treatment.
Then, there are many men in this country who are drawing 100 per cent disability pensions. Those men are not eligible to enter a D.V.A. hospital unless their illness, sickness or the accident they may have suffered can be attributed directly to the disability as a result of which they are drawing pension. Might it not have been more generous if the 100 per cent pensioner were permitted to occupy available space in a D.V.A. hospital, whether or not he was able to pay in full the usual charges of that hospital?
I feel that had more consideration been given before this regulation was drawn up, if there had been an opportunity for members of the House of Commons to discuss the matter with representatives of the government, with departmental officials and with representatives of veterans' organizations, a scheme
Supply-Veterans Affairs would have been prepared which would have helped the veteran who is not in a position to pay, rather than give advantage to the veteran who is in a position to pay the full amount of his hospitalization.
I know that I shall be told that the cost of hospitalization in a veterans' hospital compares favourably with the cost in any other hospital, but we know that the cost of hospitalization, whether it be a D.V.A. hospital or a civilian hospital, is quite expensive. Figures were given last year showing that the daily charge for a ward bed in a D.V.A. hospital was $9.75, which included medical attention. It will be seen that these charges compare favourably with those of civilian hospitals, but I point out that $9.75 a day is a mighty large sum of money for a man to pay out who has liquid assets of only $250 and whose yearly income is only $500. Had there been an opportunity to discuss tins matter I think a different solution might have been worked out.
Another matter I wish to refer to is the general policy with regard to the issue of medals for service in the last war. General dissatisfaction has been expressed because men who were entitled to receive service medals find that their names have not been inscribed on the medals. The medals issued after world war I gave the man's name and his regimental number on the edge of the medal, but in this war the medals have been issued without any name whatever and they can be pawned off and passed around without a man being able to say, "This is the medal I earned."
There is another point of grievous concern to a unit in which a large number of men from my constituency served and to other units across the country. Those gallant men who served in the magnificent raid upon Dieppe in 1942, a raid which startled the world and provided such valuable lessons for the invasions to follow in later years in Africa and Europe, have been denied the privilege of wearing the Northwest European Star. Service medals are awarded after consultation between the various governments of the commonwealth. The only government that was really concerned with the welfare of the men who served at Dieppe was the Canadian government. There were no other commonwealth troops in that action except the men of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and two commandos from the British army.
Surely the Canadian government might have realized what the Northwest European Star would have meant to those men. Many

Supply-Veterans Affairs of them were taken prisoners of war and had no opportunity to gain medals in other campaigns. If any troops served in northwest Europe, they did. If any troops were entitled to that medal, they were. I cannot help feeling that there was laxity on the part of the government in not seeing that those men who fought in such a magnificent action, an action which contributed so much to the success of the campaigns that were to follow, were awarded that medal.
I have only one other point with which I should like to deal. Earlier in my speech I started to refer to the necessity of being as economical as possible. I wonder whether the money spent on the monthly publication Veterans' Affairs is really worth while and whether that publication is appreciated by all those who receive it. I am wondering whether the $20,000 or $30,000 required for its publication could not be spent to better advantage. I know that many copies are sent to hospitals where perhaps they are appreciated, but there are many other copies that perhaps are not appreciated.
The publication contains a certain amount of information regarding the department, but I feel it is of questionable general advantage. I am not prepared to say that it is of no advantage, I am not prepared to say that it is not appreciated, but I think the expense of its publication is well worth investigating. I have mentioned $20,000 or $30,000, but I imagine the exact amount will be brought out in the discussion of the estimates. The details are given in this book and1 I presume the amount mentioned is largely spent on that particular publication.
To sum up, because there are these and many other problems which I have not the time this evening to go into, I say once again that we need a committee to examine all matters having to do with veterans' affairs, to examine the estimates and the general policy. It would make available the cumulative advice and experience of hon. members of this house who could meet and express the wishes of the people of this country to deal as fairly and as generously as possible with the ex-servicemen of this land.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes at my disposal I should like to make a plea to the minister and to the government on behalf of a group of veterans in my constituency as well as in various constituencies across Canada. I refer to the prisoners of war in the European theatre. These men who served
[Mr. Pearkes.l
so gallantly in that theatre of war have now come back into civilian life to a large extent and have taken their part in a dignified and important manner. The commanding officer of the Essex Scottish regiment at the present time is Lieutenant Colonel Walter Macgregor, who served with distinction at Dieppe, and who for many months was a prisoner of war. Mr. Frank Walton, the newly elected president of the junior chamber of commerce in my constituency, is another who served with distinction in the armed forces and who is now taking his place in civilian affairs.
These prisoners of war in Germany were subjected to great indignities. I am informed that the enemy did not comply with the Geneva agreement with respect to many of the laws and rules of warfare concerning the treatment of prisoners. The men suffered insults of mind and of body and also great humiliation. They were unlawfully confined on numerous occasions. Their restraint and shackling is now history and we hope such practices will never reappear. They were deprived of adequate food, shelter, accommodation, clothing and various other amenities of life while prisoners of war. The result was that many of these veterans suffered great physical difficulties which have continued up to the present time, and in all probability will remain with them for many years to come.
I understand that members of the armed forces of the United States who served in this theatre of war and who became prisoners of war have been allotted certain compensation out of reparations due from the Germans, and also that there was certain compensation given by Canada to veterans who served at Hong Kong. I have received two resolutions which have been forwarded to the minister. One is from the Essex Scottish regimental association at Windsor and in brief it petitions the government as follows:
Now therefore be it resolved that the government of Canada be respectfully requested to award to each of the said Canadian prisoners of war held by the German government, by way of reparation and partial compensation, a sum of money calculated on the basis of $1 a day for each day of confinement, on which the German government failed to furnish the quantity or quality of food or supplies, heat or accommodation required by the terms of the Geneva convention, or on which it subjected the said prisoners of war to other unlawful treatment as aforesaid.
I understand this petition has been forwarded to the Minister of Veterans Affairs representing the government and has also been supported by a further petition from the largest automotive labour union, I believe,

in the Dominion of Canada, local 200 UAW-CIO. This union goes on record as supporting the veterans of the Essex Scottish regimental association as follows:
Be it resolved that we of organized labour request the Canadian government to pay all prisoners of war (world war II) $1 as provided in the Geneva agreement.
May I, Mr. Chairman, add my support to the plea not only of the regimental association but also of organized labour and request that every consideration be given by the government to the granting of this compensation. We realize that probably the Canadian veteran has been treated as well as or maybe better than most other veterans throughout
Supply-Veterans Affairs the world. Nevertheless there is no compensation in dollars or in goods that we can give to these veterans which will adequately pay them for their services, or which will adequately exonerate us from the great debt that we owe them.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on
Monday we will resume the debate on the budget.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1805
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 24, 1950